we have a CoE break contingent upon an effective CoM break,
with the exploit confirmed at every stage in that process. The experiment
confirms the theory, literally mechanising the maths of OU. This isn't a
false-positive, it's the real deal..
On Mon, Dec 4, 2023 at 1:36 PM Vibrator ! wrote:
the first devices would be cool - i'm just an
obsessive hobbyist with no idea how to get this where it needs to be..
This warrants serious attention!
On Mon, Dec 4, 2023 at 9:28 AM Jürg Wyttenbach wrote:
> We all wait for the first device with COP >2!
>
>
> J.W:
>
> On 04.
Just a heads up for anyone interested - i've succeeded in my long-held
objective of cultivating and harvesting a divergent inertial frame.
The energy density is whatever you want - just make up some high number and
you're good - and power density is basically that number times how many
cycles a
The first law is specifically framed in terms of 'closed systems', yet what
constitutes full thermodynamic enclosure is always open to question.
Fundamentally, the system has to be open to a fundamental force constant,
and time. That could be the EM force constant, alpha, or the gravitational
The ARV story is chaff; misdirection to fill the void with something
semi-plausible, at least to some degree of consistency, yet whilst only
providing bumsteer. The UFO equivalent of red mercury. Visitors' craft
are obviously surrounded by some kind of glowing orb phenomenon, commonly
assumed to
Multiple independent captures in HD and 60 Hz, using fixed focal length
phone cams with fixed apertures, showing macroscopic quantum effects at
ranges down to a few centimetres, are all out of focus butterflies? And
this is just one type of mini-UAP - there's others indexed in the list that
don't
Terry Blanton wrote:
> Intervention is nigh:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mission_Earth_(novel_series)
>
> On Sat, Aug 27, 2022 at 7:53 PM Robin
> wrote:
>
>> In reply to Vibrator !'s message of Sat, 27 Aug 2022 20:49:36 +0100:
>> Hi,
>> [snip]
>
Lots of amazing discoveries to plough through so i'll try keep it brief,
however a certain minimum of word-space is required just to summarise
current findings:
• there are multiple different alien beings visiting constantly
• there are multiple different humanoids using saucer craft
ie.
-shaped IR silhouettes clustered around Europa's orbit (links in the
list); i could find no official explanation, thus far.. but hopefully
there's a perfectly prosaic one eh..
On Fri, Jul 8, 2022 at 7:08 AM Robin
wrote:
> In reply to Vibrator !'s message of Mon, 4 Jul 2022 11:12:33 +0100:
&
cannot introduce an effective CoM violation into an
otherwise-closed (isolated) system and not expect its net momentum to
change..
On Fri, Jul 8, 2022 at 7:28 AM Robin
wrote:
> In reply to Vibrator !'s message of Sat, 2 Jul 2022 01:41:55 +0100:
> Hi,
> >> Every moving thing on
I didn't put any on tick tok.
I didn't 'put' any anywhere.
Again, every day for the last few weeks i've come home from work and
checked YouTube for the last 24 hrs' UAP uploads.
I skip the dross, and categorise the rest. So, 'this one goes under this
header, this one belongs on that list, this
> If you want to believe in little green men, be my guest.
..so you haven't looked at any of the evidence? Just wanted to say hello eh..
Well on the off-chance you ever get bored, or really want answers to these big
questions, maybe take a look in your own time.. I don't see anyone else making
smopolitan mix of local techno-cultures.. but one,
particular guest, that we have.
And right now, they seem very interested in us indeed.. (woo-wavy hands)
On Sat, Jul 2, 2022 at 8:44 PM Vibrator ! wrote:
> > Chinese fire lanterns. Which explains why they are seen all around the
> &
y
> in W3.
>
> On Sat, 2 Jul 2022 at 01:59, Vibrator ! wrote:
>
>> If you check the 'box-orbs' list, i now have at least two that clearly
>> show tethered pairs:
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZubVcEHtBlw
>>
>> https://www.tiktok.com/@draw_m
If you check the 'box-orbs' list, i now have at least two that clearly show
tethered pairs:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZubVcEHtBlw
https://www.tiktok.com/@draw_my_town/video/7104013293471304965?lang=en
Same flight config too.. as if the lower one were perhaps siphoning some
fluid from the
> Every moving thing on the planet does the same thing. However the net effect
> is
> zero..
Reciprocity is obviously broken for effectively-reactionless
accelerations however. Let me try restate the conundrum more clearly:
• gravity's a mutual attraction between masses / inertias as observed
Turning the subject 45° on an axis for a moment, a large hovering diamond
was filmed by multiple witnesses in Columbia the other day, links added to
the list.
Could it be the same hovering diamond-shaped craft from Nick Pope's
infamous office poster of a similar sighting in Scotland?
> Obviously no one has heard of them, because you just invented the name.
I first saw that term in reference to the box-shaped object that flew
uncomfortably close between two military jets travelling in the opposite
direction - this particular incident often given as an example of why the
I've been trying to bite my tongue for fear of lowering the tone, but the
sheer weight of corroborating evidence for this phenomena must by now be
worthy of Vorts' attention.
Some weeks back, YT began showing me suggestions for UAP videos. I'd
watched the David Fravor interviews after the NYT
> So progression from 18th century theory of Boscovich to modern physics
Fascinating, i was unaware of Boscovich's contributions, great
first-principle reasoning though..
There's still a good bit of unfinished business with certain 18th-century
breakthroughs that've languished, but don't get me
in add: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/quantum/schr.html
IE. equivalent, not conflicting..
> here is an example
> Absorption and Stimulated Emission by a Thin Slab Obeying the Lorentz
> Oscillator Model
It's a quantitative formulation from classical first principles, sans
Schrodinger.. whereas the wave equation approximates the time
evolution of the wavefunction; you could describe a
> I have been doing more reading about the history of stimulated
> emission. Einstein formally introduced a quantum version of the concept in
> 1917.
> Therefore you might think that it is only possible in a quantum
theoretical
> context. However, subsequent mathematical work has shown that a form
The Anomalous Magnetization of Iron and Steel, B. Osgood Peirce 1912:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/20022770?seq=2
The effects seem to pertain to high dv/dt impulses however.. not to
mention antique metallurgical samples (the high-Sv kind).
Modern electrical steels OTOH are designed to be
> Think of little magnets arranged end to end. NSNSNS etc. Not only do they
> attract but the field is cumulative, and as it
> get stronger it "convinces" other magnets to align the same way.
Variability of domain pinning strengths (individual domain wall
coercivities) is one cause of Sv per
The guy's claiming that induced B in 'electrical steel' climbs to 500% of
applied H.
He's basically claiming runaway self-induction, apparently as an inherent
property of this material.
So what to make of it? Applying an H field induces a B field, giving their
combined field density M, or net
The La Palma eruption continues to surprise and confound:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cXhfSNFAUuk
..no longer a case of guesstimating the stored potential energy, so much as
the ongoing processes apparently replenishing it.
What's been bugging me for some time is that OU solutions solve
> His failures are waaay past 'E' in the alphabet.
..well as someone up to hexadecimal figures i maybe have a low bar;
whatevs, SOMETHING's going down next Thursday so don't forget to cast a
weary eye that way even if you're not stocking up on popcorn (me neither,
honestly).
One or two
Hi Bob, cheers for the thoughts but it obvs wasn't really a serious
exercise - the bosonic nature of the D2 molecule and nucleus, along with
the high magnetic moment of Ni as a potential short-range polarising factor
just seemed to offer up a possibly-fertile axis of coherence; scaling up
might
In light of Rossi's apparent lead i'd be looking at the possibility of
spontaneous formation of novel condensates. The D2 diatomic molecule being
a boson presents an obvious soft target for aligning spins to cohere into
shared lower-energy quantum states, the different magnetic moments of the
Magnetic 'over' and 'under' unity interactions are spectrum conditions of
the same basic effects of magnets doing what they always do - there IS no
deus ex machina when we throw back the curtains and see how the trick was
achieved!
EM OU - if not OU per se - is nothing so exotic as mundane
> Cars are structurally complex. Just consider rubber balls of equal size and
> use their deformation as a measure of "damage". If the two rubber balls
> move towards each other they will deform an equal amount when they collide.
> If one rubber ball is resting against a massive wall and the other
FWIW momentum is conserved (time-invariant), whereas conservation of energy
is a consequence of CoM..
The real meat and potatoes here is that any 'energy' derivation always has
an equivalent metric comprised of the same components as momentum, just
evolving differently (ie. mV compared to ½mV²) -
This IS interesting, good find..!
So once again, a common theme seems to be that the experimental conditions
focus energy onto electrons at small spatiotemporal scales, causing exotic
quantum states. Note in section 5 tho it is suggested that the density /
weight of the material is integral to
..i'll just repeat the same point here i made at ECW; the KE / momentum
derivations from the tracks alone proceed on an assumption of CoE and CoM,
hence the findings of stupendous mass / energies / superluminal values of
'V'.
Yet surely a saner explanation is that, rather than burning off a
..dropped the video link there:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1=341Yk4k51uY=emb_logo
Watching this later, right up my street thanks..
Probably been mooted before; but could the anomalous acceleration be due to
outgassing of hydrinos?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_B._Goodenough
Doh! Miles away.. (besides, could've had Josiah Gibbs)..
'Electret' - that was the word - but yep, something a bit different here..
albeit still amenable to calorimetry i should think.
"Quote: A subthreshold swing is demonstrated below the thermal limit in an
electrochemical cell that mimics a gate-to-channel circuit cell in a FeFET,
surpassing the
If self-oscillation is phonon-driven - and also forms the source gradient -
then it's an effective 2LoT violation.
Doesn't rule out an EM / ZPE source of course, but Occam would suggest
that's redundant..
So, unlike Steorn's ferro-electric caps or whatever it was they were doing
(foggy now)..
Making no assumptions as to the existence or nature of time and space, we
can reduce their defining properties to more fundamental propositions:
• there are information processors (us)
• thus there is, implicitly, 'information', the actual substance and
format of which is determined by our
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,
The answer is N3 - and the same reason crashing a car into a concrete wall
is twice as severe as a head-on collision of equal relative velocity, since
it's the vehicles' speeds relative to the ground that enumerates and
underwrites the value of 'velocity' in the KE equation, not their speed
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 ! wro
..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
Found an interesting paper last night - moreso in its assumptions, than
conclusions - but i thought it worth sharing, in relation to my current
state of progress..
I'd been thinking about the exploit i'm chasing down; to recap, as we all
know, gravitational potential energy (GPE) is given by
priestess of the great lord Anumpti Nunu's toothbrush (or else who
are the messages coming from?).
On Sat, Sep 14, 2019 at 3:15 AM Vibrator ! wrote:
> LOL some years ago i had an interesting discussion re. 'monopoles' on
> PhysOrg:
>
>
> https://phys.org/news/2014-01-physicists-syn
LOL some years ago i had an interesting discussion re. 'monopoles' on
PhysOrg:
https://phys.org/news/2014-01-physicists-synthetic-magnetic-monopole-years.html
...suffice to say, colour me skeptical.. ;)
On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 5:29 PM Jürg Wyttenbach wrote:
> Axil:
>
> Even if you post this
on't survive rotation into perpendicular planes, and i'm
still an idiot..
On Thu, Jun 6, 2019 at 10:44 AM Frank Grimer <88.fr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ride carefully.
>
> On Thu, 6 Jun 2019 at 06:58, Vibrator ! wrote:
>
>> " a 50% accumulator? So 2-cycs to unity, 3 to 1
" a 50% accumulator? So 2-cycs to unity, 3 to 133%."
eek i meant "3 to 150%", duh, need slepp..
On Thu, Jun 6, 2019 at 6:55 AM Vibrator ! wrote:
> ..on 2nd thoughts, isn't it a 50% accumulator? So 2-cycs to unity, 3 to
> 133%..
>
> And MoI's obviously s
.
Suffice to say if real, it ain't dolphin-friendly.. but does it even work?
On Thu, Jun 6, 2019 at 6:12 AM Vibrator ! wrote:
> Magic Roundabout
>
>
> You're standing on the edge of a turntable, holding a heavy flywheel in
> your hands.
>
> Beginning with both axes parall
Magic Roundabout
You're standing on the edge of a turntable, holding a heavy flywheel in
your hands.
Beginning with both axes parallel, spin that baby up..
..then rotate its axis 90° into the perpendicular plane. This exerts a
precessional torque, which is earthed through the turntable's
t; wrote:
> Wrong. I fear I could never understand Vibrator.
> You are right about Not the Steorn Forum. Cynics all, apart from Tim
>
> I wonder how Shawn (the real spelling on his birth certificate
> according to the Alesbury registrar) is getting on.
>
> On Wed, 6 Feb 2019 at 13:37,
to error - no one will be more surprised than me if
this turns out to be legit - but all indications so far are that it is!
On Wed, Feb 6, 2019 at 1:37 PM Terry Blanton wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 6, 2019 at 7:06 AM Vibrator ! wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Sorry to bump my own
ting up and taking
notice.. this is NOT some prank.. it's a sincere "alert!" & request for
backup..
On Tue, Feb 5, 2019 at 11:44 AM Vibrator ! wrote:
> Hi John, and thank you so much for taking an interest!
>
> The input energy to the motors is being logged in terms of t
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
lated
in real-time, in duplicate - independently by me (using the above standard
equations), as well as by the sim's own low-level calculus.
On Sat, Feb 2, 2019 at 1:19 AM Dave Roberson wrote:
> Vibrator, I am confident that if you confine your concept to a closed
> system that both
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
.
Seriously, it is nothing less than proof positive - comprehensive,
definitive, unassailable.
On Tue, Jun 5, 2018 at 2:09 PM, John Berry wrote:
> Vibrator, do you have a machine that generates energy, a device that
> powers itself?
>
> If so, then yes it is beyond question that y
ed by N3. Effective violations of the 3rd law 'create' mechanical
energy, by raising momentum on the cheap! The value of that momentum
however remains a standard function of V^2 in the static frame, hence
collect underpants and profit.
On Tue, Jun 5, 2018 at 6:22 AM, John Shop wrote:
> On
with it by the w/e i'll post it up here, though i'm setting my
expectations low, just as you are..
On Tue, Jun 5, 2018 at 5:20 AM, John Shop wrote:
> On 5/06/2018 2:40 AM, Vibrator ! wrote:
>
> Your view of what is conserved and why is too simple, and essentially
> incomplete.
>
> All
eek 'touch wood'. Jinx.
On Tue, Jun 5, 2018 at 12:04 AM, Vibrator ! wrote:
> Agreed. A great equaliser. Burst bubbles all round. Brexit for everyone!
>
> As for fame or fortune, not interested in the former but i currently live
> on about 8K so a pot to piss in would be nice. S
Agreed. A great equaliser. Burst bubbles all round. Brexit for everyone!
As for fame or fortune, not interested in the former but i currently live
on about 8K so a pot to piss in would be nice. Still, that's no reason to
bury it like Bessler did. And we all benefit from the results, so long
with of course,
but still, waste not want not..
(before anyone dives overboard the above interaction's not the one i'm
claiming to have successfully implemented)
On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 7:18 PM, John Shop wrote:
> On 5/06/2018 12:37 AM, Vibrator ! wrote:
>
> Consider a 1 kg weight, connected by
:25 PM, John Shop wrote:
> 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 for
m in the opposite direction.
>
> I personally cannot see where there would be a cost of energy though for
> the photon to be coming from.
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 5, 2018 at 3:37 AM, John Shop wrote:
>
>> On 1/06/2018 5:35 AM, Vibrator ! wrote:
>>
>> . . .
>>
accelerating", and now nobody will believe me and it's so unfair etc.
On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 4:37 PM, John Shop wrote:
> On 1/06/2018 5:35 AM, Vibrator ! wrote:
>
> . . .
> The thing is, a real model is inherently suspect - defeating its
> ostensible purpose. Batteries and m
@Chris
You're kind of on the right track, if not quite for the right reasons yet,
but yes, i've concluded i ought to make a full disclosure within a few days.
I'd wanted to 'do the right thing' and minimise the chances of causing
harm, also giving UK academia first dibs. No one's taken the bait
hat they're supposed to, without fail, in both time and space..
but especially with regards to time.
On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 9:14 AM, John Berry wrote:
> Vibrator, there are a number of claims involving violation of CoM and CoE,
> and it involves an asymmetry in the rate a acceleration/
ssler case, to the humiliation of going off half-cocked.
This is a no-takesy backsies, adamant and unapologetic claim of mechanical
OU, certain and unconditional.
It would have to be one truly-committed sociology experiment, don't you
think..?
On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 8:51 AM, wrote:
> In reply
ng 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.
>
>
>
> 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
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
18 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 F
ey 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 constraint
t;>
>>>> 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 so
@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..
The effect i'm using is utterly pedestrian and unremarkable in every way,
except for the net result. It really is just a matter of
.. but rushing
things is almost certain to.
On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 6:30 AM, wrote:
> In reply to Vibrator !'s message of Fri, 1 Jun 2018 04:01:20 +0100:
> Hi,
>
> We humans use about 500 quad/yr of energy. At that rate it would take 5
> trillion
> years to use all the kinetic
. Try the toy industry.
>
> On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 9:59 PM, Vibrator ! wrote:
>
>> @John - cheers mate, like i say, i have indisputable proof-positive
>> already, it's just a question of what the hell to do with it. Who to show
>> it to, if i also want some kind of, umm,
ion: Ideally film the construction
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 12:13 PM, John Berry wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi vibrator. The "right" people are hard to fine.
>>>>
>>>> Very few people will consider that the CoM or the CoE
e
invisible pink unicorn. It is only AFTER trying everything else that i've
come to seek the wisdoms of the Vorts..
On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 10:35 PM, Vibrator ! wrote:
> I've always been of the same opinion... up till now.
>
> The thing is, a real model is inherently suspect - defeating its
I've always been of the same opinion... up till now.
The thing is, a real model is inherently suspect - defeating its ostensible
purpose. Batteries and motors can be hidden, etc.
Suppose you surround your build with meters. Meters for everything.
Meters FOR the meters. All cross-referencing
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 /
https://phys.org/news/2017-11-theoretical-quark-fusion-powerful-hydrogen.html
down
there, and i am partial to the notion of an active vacuum.. but all angels
and pinheads to me i'm afraid..
On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 6:20 PM, bobcook39...@hotmail.com <
bobcook39...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> It seems Vortex-l has a new voice in Vibrator!. It fits nicely with the
> cur
The torque is undoubtedly a thermal / radiative asymmetry between upper
(warmer) and lower (cooler) sides of the levitated sphere.
However even if it's due to the random, turbulent airflow caused by the
temperature gradient and evaporation, it's rectifying to consistent
momentum the same way a
The motion is powered by the applied current, explained in the synopsis.
Ie. input energy is converting to work. The anisotropy is a material,
structural or reactive property, not a fundamental field property.
Obviously there is chiralty and 'handedness' in nature, but what i was
attempting to
Curl and divergence of B are zero. Maxwell's own metaphor of "vortices"
for dipoles is literally shown to be inaccurate by the theory. Likewise,
there is no such thing as "field lines" inherent to the field, and their
formation is purely a feedback effect from dynamically self-organising
dipole
ould violate classical laws just seems kinda redundant.
On Thu, Dec 29, 2016 at 5:55 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence <sa...@pobox.com>
wrote:
>
>
> On 12/29/2016 12:46 PM, Vibrator ! wrote:
>
>> What's wrong with the centripetal tether example?
>>
>
> With the engine t
;sa...@pobox.com>
wrote:
>
>
> On 12/29/2016 12:31 PM, Vibrator ! wrote:
>
>> Offering the implied presence of classical symmetry breaks as evidence of
>> their impossibility - ie. "it can't be right because it'd break the laws of
>> physics" - is surely redundant;
Offering the implied presence of classical symmetry breaks as evidence of
their impossibility - ie. "it can't be right because it'd break the laws of
physics" - is surely redundant; the claim is explicitly a classical
symmetry break, that's its whole prospective value, and reason for our
interest.
Interesting thoughts from Jones here - certain viscosity effects result in
systems with time-dependent net energies - and negative hysteresis losses
would indeed be OU, since the "induced" B field would be automatically
changing under zero applied H field, and a freely-alternating
(time-varying)
wave mechanism.
>
> BTW, I uploaded a video of another realization of this cw spinning
> experiment at
> https://youtu.be/-XKbRrea-CA
>
>
> -- Original message--
> *From: *Vibrator !
> *Date: *Wed, Mar 23, 2016 23:15
> *To: *vortex-l@eskimo.com;
> *Cc: *
&g
another realization of this cw spinning
> experiment at
> https://youtu.be/-XKbRrea-CA
>
>
> ------ Original message--
> *From: *Vibrator !
> *Date: *Wed, Mar 23, 2016 23:15
> *To: *vortex-l@eskimo.com;
> *Cc: *
> *Subject:*Re: [Vo]:Obtained stable magnetic bound s
gt; aligned so not simply a gear like mechanism.
>
> >Vibrator ! Tue, 22 Mar 2016 17:08:37 -0700
>
> >(ETA. counterclockwise synch is interesting and also easily replicable,
> at least in diametrically magnetised rotors, Again though, if this is
> an axially polarised levitation then th
doesn't apply, but the combination of levitation and
counter-rotation is still cool.. would make for a neat executive toy..)
On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 12:02 AM, Vibrator ! <mrvibrat...@gmail.com> wrote:
> What are the relative polarities - are they axially or diametrically
> pola
What are the relative polarities - are they axially or diametrically
polarised (poles on opposite faces or same face)?
Assuming axial magnetisation and that both are common permanent magnets,
the floating weight is levitated by reuplsion in apparent defiance of
Earnshaw's theorem (since, per
so does that
PE's corresponding relativistic mass fluctuate as i move it around?
On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 7:28 AM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote:
> -----Original Message-
> From: Vibrator ! <mrvibrat...@gmail.com>
> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
&g
ecessarily mean it's wrong
of course, but should set alarm bells ringing..
On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 4:42 AM, H LV <hveeder...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 10:32 PM, Vibrator ! <mrvibrat...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > That's conflating relativistic mass with r
gt; wrote:
> In reply to Vibrator !'s message of Mon, 14 Mar 2016 11:03:43 +:
> Hi,
> [snip]
> >And so the question arises, how does the EM drive "know" what its
> reference frame is? Shawyer claims (or seems to imply) that the unit cost
> of acceleration increases as
1 - 100 of 120 matches
Mail list logo
