Re: [Vo]:Mech OU & Inertial Thrust

[Vibrator !]

's possible to limit the amount of the KE gain harnessed as
PE this way, keeping it as KE on the over-unity body instead.  This in turn
allows the gain to be correlated back to the velocity component of the
anomalous momentum delta - so you can see the gain, and what's causing and
embodying it, together in an empirical way.

Prior to the current 'sustainable' dual-rotor config i was testing single
rotors;  immediately upon confirming OU i attached one of these to a
virtual planet - a mass heavy enough to be all but stationary, yet its
motion and position still discernable to many digits precision - and found
that it continually accelerates whilst running.  Upon ceasing the
interaction, the planet then continues to coast at its new angular and
linear velocities.  You can see the results of that test here:

https://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1=9300=15


..hence why i've now moved to dual reciprocating systems which mutually
self-cancel these stray momenta.

Ultimately, 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:

> In the last config the best CoP seemed to converge to around 3.5.
>
> Bessler indicated CoP's of 4 were possible, in one passage seemingly
> implying a factor of 16:
>
> Der wird ein großer Künstler heißen,
> Wer ein schwer Ding leicht hoch kann schmeißen,
> Und wenn ein Pfund ein Viertel fällt,
> Es vier Pfund hoch vier Viertel schnellt. x
> Wer dieses aus kann spekuliren,
> Wird bald den Lauf perpetuiren;
>
>  "He will be called a great craftsman, who can easily/lightly throw a
> heavy thing high, and if one pound falls a quarter, it shoots four pounds
> four quarters high."
>
> The latest sim which i finished last night, is designed to be infinitely
> adjustable, so i'm going to use it to explore the gradient, find its upper
> bounds.
>
> As mentioned though, the gain is constant per cycle, so net gain is just
> the per-cycle gain multiplied by the number of elapsed cycles.
>
> Any help getting from here to 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 04.12.2023 09:59, Vibrator ! wrote:
>> > 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 second you'd like.
>> >
>> > As predicted, it's also a reactionless thruster, breaking both CoM and
>> > CoAM.  Latest version of the interaction runs opposing systems in
>> > tandem, mutually self-cancelling all stray momenta.
>> >
>> > If you'd struggle to believe there was sufficient complexity within
>> > classical mechanics for the possibility of over-unity to go unnoticed
>> > for three centuries - that within Newton's three laws, plus gravity,
>> > there could lay hidden the kernel of an interface between the
>> > corporeal and sublime - i would not argue with you..
>> >
>> > ..yet the fact is, gravity isn't even involved.  It's just an inertial
>> > interaction!
>> >
>> > Believe it or not, it's possible to source and sink momentum and
>> > energy from and to inertia and time!
>> >
>> > See my thread on the BW forum - it's all sims for now, but a major
>> > advance on what was previously a completely-outsider theory.
>> >
>> > Mechanical over-unity is no longer even an engineering problem, let
>> > alone a physics one..
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> --
>> Jürg Wyttenbach
>> Bifangstr. 22
>> 8910 Affoltern am Albis
>>
>> +41 44 760 14 18
>> +41 79 246 36 06
>>
>>

Re: [Vo]:Mech OU & Inertial Thrust

[Vibrator !]

In the last config the best CoP seemed to converge to around 3.5.

Bessler indicated CoP's of 4 were possible, in one passage seemingly
implying a factor of 16:

Der wird ein großer Künstler heißen,
Wer ein schwer Ding leicht hoch kann schmeißen,
Und wenn ein Pfund ein Viertel fällt,
Es vier Pfund hoch vier Viertel schnellt. x
Wer dieses aus kann spekuliren,
Wird bald den Lauf perpetuiren;

 "He will be called a great craftsman, who can easily/lightly throw a heavy
thing high, and if one pound falls a quarter, it shoots four pounds four
quarters high."

The latest sim which i finished last night, is designed to be infinitely
adjustable, so i'm going to use it to explore the gradient, find its upper
bounds.

As mentioned though, the gain is constant per cycle, so net gain is just
the per-cycle gain multiplied by the number of elapsed cycles.

Any help getting from here to 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 04.12.2023 09:59, Vibrator ! wrote:
> > 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 second you'd like.
> >
> > As predicted, it's also a reactionless thruster, breaking both CoM and
> > CoAM.  Latest version of the interaction runs opposing systems in
> > tandem, mutually self-cancelling all stray momenta.
> >
> > If you'd struggle to believe there was sufficient complexity within
> > classical mechanics for the possibility of over-unity to go unnoticed
> > for three centuries - that within Newton's three laws, plus gravity,
> > there could lay hidden the kernel of an interface between the
> > corporeal and sublime - i would not argue with you..
> >
> > ..yet the fact is, gravity isn't even involved.  It's just an inertial
> > interaction!
> >
> > Believe it or not, it's possible to source and sink momentum and
> > energy from and to inertia and time!
> >
> > See my thread on the BW forum - it's all sims for now, but a major
> > advance on what was previously a completely-outsider theory.
> >
> > Mechanical over-unity is no longer even an engineering problem, let
> > alone a physics one..
> >
> >
> >
> >
> --
> Jürg Wyttenbach
> Bifangstr. 22
> 8910 Affoltern am Albis
>
> +41 44 760 14 18
> +41 79 246 36 06
>
>

[Vo]:Mech OU & Inertial Thrust

[Vibrator !]

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 second you'd like.

As predicted, it's also a reactionless thruster, breaking both CoM and
CoAM.  Latest version of the interaction runs opposing systems in tandem,
mutually self-cancelling all stray momenta.

If you'd struggle to believe there was sufficient complexity within
classical mechanics for the possibility of over-unity to go unnoticed for
three centuries - that within Newton's three laws, plus gravity, there
could lay hidden the kernel of an interface between the corporeal and
sublime - i would not argue with you..

..yet the fact is, gravity isn't even involved.  It's just an inertial
interaction!

Believe it or not, it's possible to source and sink momentum and energy
from and to inertia and time!

See my thread on the BW forum - it's all sims for now, but a major advance
on what was previously a completely-outsider theory.

Mechanical over-unity is no longer even an engineering problem, let alone a
physics one..

[Vo]:Conservation of energy

[Vibrator !]

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
constant G etc., these reducing to effective time rates of exchange of
momenta or ±dp/dt, in turn opening the possibility of divergent inertial
reference frames and hence a breakdown of conservation of energy between
velocity frames.  OU systems more generally are 'inadvertently /
inexplicably open thermodynamic systems', where one might superficially
expect them to be closed and isolated, such that ie. calorimetry would be
defeated. Historically, Bessler's wheel was a legit claim, repeatedly
demonstrated and accredited to the highest standards; i suspect Rossi's
eCat is also legit, probably Ylidiz too, but as ever the challenge is
figuring out HOW and why the effect is being generated, taming what most
dismiss as an invisible pink elephant..

The whole field's still marred in conflicted thinking, on both sides..
'perpetual motion' simply Newton's first law, pending some external force
acting to change it..  OU - together with under-unity (AKA non-dissipative
loss mechanisms) - are a spectrum-condition of novel I/O force / space /
time asymmetries, as i say, pivoting on fundamental force constants and
time..  That is, to play the energy game you first have to play the
momentum game, challenging N2 (F=mA and its inversions) and N3
(instantaneous equality of momenta and counter-momenta).  OU / UU means a
divergent inertial frame; that is, one proceeding without inertial
interaction with its environment, and this applies equally to classical EM
theory as mechanics.  In other words caveat emptor - there's always a
corresponding entropy change, somewhere.. what matters is that the worst
effects of any resulting fallout are anticipated and mitigated.  No
free-energy panacea, no actions without consequences.  The vacuum is
obviously not 'nothing', and engineering it is not something you wanna be
doing inadvertently (see how big-rip scenarios are contingent on localised
variations in the strength of the Higgs interaction triggering runaway
equilibration of false-vacuum potentials and collapse into a lower or
true-vacuum state, for instance).  Bessler's five-week demonstration of his
largest, most-powerful wheel at castle Weissenstein through winter 1717 is
coincident with the Christmas storms of 1717 that devastated the NW
European coastline weeks later; resting momentum states are not disturbed
lightly or trivially..

[Vo]:Re: Antigravity with a ring of capacitors

[Vibrator !]

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 be plasma; superficially, consistent with application of a high
electric field density, sufficient to exceed the breakdown density of the
surrounding air molecules.  Thus, so the logic goes, generating warp fields
must have something to do with powerful electric fields.

Of course we're being asked to walk the plank there however - so far as the
standard field equations are concerned, the electric field density required
to cause such significant yet highly-localised spacetime deformations as
we're seeing could only be contained by a miniature black hole; it's
circular logic.

But even the plasma ball hypothesis doesn't hold up to basic logic - we
predominantly see orange / white hues - the former might imply helium, but
that's only a trace element in air, and besides, we'd then need to invoke a
conserved supply of different gases to ionise for every other colour of the
spectrum these things can rapidly cycle through.  Air's 70% nitrogen, which
fluoresces violet from the combined preponderance of red and
blue-wavelength electron shell transitions - the familiar colour or
electrical arcing.

Even worse for the plasma theory are the results of diffraction
spectroscopy, revealing a continuous spectrum consistent with sun or
starlight, or the CMBR, as opposed to the discrete line spectra of specific
fluorescing elements.   See the Hessdalen example for instance.

Then of course there's the fact that these orbs persist underwater, or out
in space.  So for starters, UAP glow is not ionised gases!  Some ionisation
is occurring, but as an effect of the light, rather than its cause; this is
due to the +UV components of these broad-spectrum emissions, forming
ionising radiation that for instance breaks up O2 which then preferentially
de-excites by forming O3 rather than by releasing a photon, and thus
responsible for the 'pungent' or 'chlorine' odour of ozone often reported
in the vicinity of sightings.  This likewise accounts for the many
instances of skin, eye and hair damage, shorting of exposed electrical
equipments, plant and soil damage (O3 blocking leaf stromata, inhibiting
respiration and in turn causing lasting carbon-depletion of the underlying
soil microbiome).

The most consistent explanation for this light production that can be
formulated from what is currently known is that it is Casimir radiation
from the interface of curved and flat spacetimes - akin to Unruh radiation,
but in this case the thermal bath effect is produced by relative
compression of the Planck length, blue-shifting of the enclosed volume of
virtual photonsphere along with shrinking of its coordinate space, as
opposed to observer acceleration.   In essence it's the familiar heat-pump
principle, wherein the 'heat' is the EM four-potential and the 'gas',
spacetime.  Squeezing spacetime makes it glow, like.  It adds relativistic
momentum and energy to virtual photons, causing the vacuum to begin
expressing real photons of all wavelengths, per Casimir.

This is why UAP glow is continuous-spectrum, and persists in space and
underwater:  it is stimulated emission of radiation from vacuum caused by
the second law of thermodynamics trying to equilibrate between the enclosed
value of raised false-vacuum, and ambient;  the two disparate values of
vacuum potential in close proximity immediately around the craft.  It is
thus environmental energy flowing almost incidentally around the craft like
a kind of vacuum-wake, rather than energy being dissipated by or lost to
the craft themselves (which for their part likely operate at or above the
Carnot efficiency limit, as long implicated by Mr Robert Lazar esq).  It is
biased towards the longer-wavelength, redder end of the spectrum (thus
warm-white) by the conservation of energy, bluer photons requiring more
energy so being less common.  AKA a Planck distribution.  This is why UAP
can be captured using cheap IR monoculars from Amazon, since even when not
emitting at visible wavelengths, they're almost-inevitably still producing
an IR signature (i've filmed dozens myself this last year).

But just as electric field density alone cannot explain such extreme
spacetime manipulations - it's all very well attributing spontaneous EM
radiation to them, if we still can't explain how they're produced - more to
the point, we cannot explain UAP warpfields within the confines of the
standard field equations and mass-energy density alone.  We need some kind
of conceptual leap or bridgehead that can be reconciled with much stronger
spacetime deformations at much shorter ranges, and at much more modest (and
practical!) mass-energy densities..

This too has been provided by Lazar:  the strong nuclear force reduces to
an 

Re: [Vo]:Current Findings on the Undeniable Alien Presence

[Vibrator !]

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 look anything like this.  Bit of a weak theory, no?  Either you're
being facetious or the MiB have got to you, but get yer specs on..  worth
putting your 'serious' hat on, for this..

Moving swiftly on, a capture was recently posted of box-orbs entering the
atmosphere over the great pyramids in the form of a giant cross-shaped
construction that dissociates into multiple independent units upon reaching
lower altitude:

 • https://youtu.be/uDx-S8TqDOo?t=2371  (part of a compilation, i'm just
referencing that one short scene)

..prior to this, i'd only seen captures of box-orbs being released or
recovered by saucers / related craft, apparently as probes or drones, so
was assuming that was their principle means of arrival.  What that video
above shows however is some kind of ferrying / transport configuration for
en masse insertions, perhaps crossing interstellar space like that, or else
released by one of the larger craft closer nearby.  Now, if you search the
list for the keyword "fleet", you'll see that there's packs of hundreds of
these things being seen at a time, and moreso the higher in altitude you
go.  This obviously raises serious red flags over just how many may now be
here, not just in our atmosphere and oceans but throughout the system - we
see them actually on the moon, for instance, and not just high in the sky
silhouetted against it (though there's plenty of such shots too);  given
how fast they can move - and besides, given that they can teleport and
hyperspace - they obviously don't need to be in 24 hr visual range to pose
an implicit potential threat, yet they're still increasing in number at an
alarming rate..  arrivals like the one above could be going on daily, yet
mostly dismissed as meteors, if even seen;  most of the planet's surface is
desolate open water - how many such insertions are simply never witnessed?

Or are they perhaps also returning home, if unseen, with basically stable
numbers doing short tours on rotation?  But what if there's millions deep
in our oceans, each able to suddenly radiate megawatts for sustained
periods - they could just boil up a load of water and steam us overnight,
or swoop down in legions deploying chemical or biological agents, or just
remote-controlling or incapacitating everyone remotely etc. etc. (all
capabilities they've claimed or demonstrated) - again, there's no question
we're being invaded by any reasonable definition of the word - this is an
interstellar extraterrestrial civilisation making an outpost of our system
with apparent impunity at the very least - the only question is whether
it's malign or benign in intent.  If it's the latter, why on earth would
they need such numbers?  I mean, if they're not here to physically
interfere in some way, why so many of them?  If they're uncrewed then that
would seem to eliminate innocent tourism.  So why the big shift of
materiels here?  They're obviously prepping for something, some task that
requires large numbers of them.  'Surveillance' alone doesn't seem to cut
it - the smaller cubes and related probes would seem more than sufficient,
not to mention stealthier.  These larger units are obviously far more
capable and numerous than a mere cartography or scouting expedition would
require.  Not to mention brazen.

And they're obviously not merely passing through, en route to some other
star, if deploying such a dedicated insertion system;  it would seem most
unlikely they'll later reform that 'cross' structure and move on to Alpha
Centauri or whatevs;  that was some serious, here-to-stay unpacking going
on there.  Even if they came right out and said "nope, no invasion planned
here, uh, we're just on exercises?" - remember how that worked out last
time:  first rule of invasion - keep schtum and misdirect, even while
amassing forces in plain sight..

The sheer scale of the incursions, together with the near-absence of wider
cognisance and not least the denialism demonstrated above, all makes for a
perfect storm..   and remember, they have quantum teleportation /
hyperspace (the latter being distinctly more energetic), GR thus implying
they could be all over our timeline, with full prescience, our defeat
already a fait accompli in some imminent day-z, just making small precise
manipulations throughout our 'present' to keep us obliviously on-track to
an inevitable date with destiny..  basically caught with our trousers round
our ankles still treating every box-orb sighting as if it were an isolated
case without precedence.

Whatever IS happening, here, it's not simply that we clearly lack the upper
hand.. we're largely oblivious there's even anything afoot..!We're
crawling through molasses in even 

Re: [Vo]:Current Findings on the Undeniable Alien Presence

[Vibrator !]

?   I know, i know, not blind;  i'm obvs
asking in the wrong place..


On Sun, Aug 28, 2022 at 2:19 AM 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]
>> >
>> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RXOssOGtruFqA1h8TA_eWqMaPgF4unUQ/view?usp=sharing
>>
>> It would be nice if the URL's listed here were actually clickable. :)
>> Next to each entry you have a 1 line summary. You could make the summary
>> the visible portion of the URL, and the actual
>> URL itself would be the link.
>> In short make
>> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RXOssOGtruFqA1h8TA_eWqMaPgF4unUQ/view
>> document an actual html document.
>> [snip]
>> Regards,
>>
>> R. van Spaandonk
>>
>> Crops, not towns, should be planted on floodplains.
>> Even the ancient Egyptians knew this.
>>
>>

[Vo]:Current Findings on the Undeniable Alien Presence

[Vibrator !]

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. implying independent co-discovery of convergent solutions, or else some
degree of cross-pollination

 • these include bug-eyed bipeds of various sizes, but predominantly smaller

 • there may be at least one distinctly human-like form, air-breathing,
caucasian-like..

 • our relationship to these particular folk remains opaque; we may be in
contact, albeit in very much a subservient role

 • the overwhelming majority of sightings may be related to one of the
above races; which, remains unclear

 • the alien in question i can only thus far identify as 'the box-orb
people' - their saucers deploy and collect box-orbs

 • their saucers each appear able to accommodate perhaps a dozen
'normal'-sized box-orb craft:  accordingly, box-orb sightings may be 10x
more common than saucers

 • both box-orbs and saucers make extensive use of metamaterial
constructions, sharing many advanced features and abilities

 • this metamaterial technology is very highly scalable - craft as large as
anything in sci-fi are regularly imaged by various systems...

 • ...conversely, units as small as insects are also occasionally captured
on film..!

 • these miniature alien craft present a particularly compelling study
specimen, as encounters invariably occur at point-blank ranges

For instance, with multiple independent 1080p / 60 Hz captures we can
observe refraction anomalies / warping of background imagery,
photo-electric interactions with ambient or applied lighting, material
interactions with their surrounding environment, kinematic characteristics
(how they move), and perhaps deduce something more of their behaviour,
purpose and intentions.

One particular hypothesis that appears bolstered by these most remarkable
captures is a potential solution to the so-called 'five observables':

  • we're seeing a propulsion mode that eschews classical translation -
and, thus, acceleration, inertia, momentum, KE and dissipation - for a
process of controlled, continual high-frequency quantum tunnelling;  the
frequency constantly variable, but generally above ~60 Hz

That is, 60 FPS video of these craft at a range of a few centimetres from
the camera clearly shows accelerating motion as a series of 'quantum leaps'
rising in frequency into an effectively-continuous motion.. thus implying
higher frame-rates will push back that illusion of translation a little
further..

In principle each jump might be as small as a Planck length, with a very
high cycle frequency..  conversely however this would also account for the
larger-scale flitting about observed when these saucers engage their
hyperdrives - an effect i'd somewhat-awkwardly dubbed 'transient positional
indeterminacies', assuming it a consequence of en masse position / momentum
covariance - but it would also obviate the questions re. sourcing and
sinking of KE and momentum, absence of dissipation effects etc.   For
reasons i'll expand on below, high-speed IR footage would seem the ideal
way to test this conjecture, however this kind of kit ain't cheap..

 • saucers - the ones responsible for the box-orbs, at any rate - appear to
switch between at least two distinct forms of propulsion, characterised as
'red glow' mode, and 'white glow' mode; the former associated with general
flight, landing, deployment and collection of box-orbs, the latter with
non-Newtonian characteristics and macro-scale quantum effects

 • white-glow mode involves hypersonic acceleration, and spontaneously
hyperspacing in a brilliant flash of rapidly-shrinking white light,
sometimes square-shaped

 • additionally, often square-shaped flashes of white light are seen to pop
off around the craft in this mode

 • a white-glowing square shape may envelope the saucer, only the rim /
flange protruding at the sides

 • the actual position of the craft may appear to jump around erratically
within a finite radius, reminiscent of a quantum object

 • the red glow is predominantly reported as more pronounced from the
craft's lower portions or underside, often together with a red light on top

 • the red glow can vary in intensity, from a dull brown to bright orange,
perhaps indicative of thermal load..

At this point it may be worth noting a point Rossi's paper invokes: cold
plasmas induced via high dv/dt electrostatic impulses spontaneously form
low-entropy states consolidating Fermi numbers, and so restricting thermal
degrees of freedom for expressing / embodying heat energy;  cooling / heat
exchange might thus pose a critical engineering problem in mass-scale
quasi-bosonic aggregates, and inadvertent over-heating may be a common
failure mode in saucer crashes.  One such incident caught on video seems
highly consistent with such a 

Re: [Vo]:It's Time We Talked About the Box-Orbs..

[Vibrator !]

Some incredible updates to report on:

 • the list now includes many more examples of box-orbs linking up like this

You can watch as two box-orbs approach one another, touch and partially
merge, then extrude the tether out between them as they part.  Then they
fly off together as a unit.  There's multiple videos of whole clouds of
these craft, veritable armadas, captured from all manner of angles - from
ground, air (from above and below) and sea.

Most astonishing revelation thus far is that the tech base appears to be
scale-invariant:  box-orbs can be TINY!   You can watch incredible footage
of what are clearly box-orbs - having all of the typical weird properties
and characteristics - yet only ~ 1³ mm in size!

Another anomaly that's becoming much more apparent is what i call the
clown-car paradox - orbs that emit many other box-orbs, which are almost as
large as it;  how'd they all fit inside, then?  TARDIS-like abilities or
something?

There's obviously a simpler explanation that would seem to tie all these
observations together - the fact that the extruded tether appears to be
made from the same semi-translucent, iridescent material as the cubes
themselves, the diminutive yet fully-autonomous fairy-like box-orbs, and
the clown-car paradox:

 • we're looking at a meta-material that can be assembled and disassembled
on the fly, perhaps using largely environmentally-sourced materials

IOW, perhaps this material's largely fabricated from the components of the
surrounding air - my feeling is not so much 'nanotech', as something that
perhaps crystallises or precipitates out from a highly-controlled plasma of
ie. air or seawater or whatever's available..  This might also be
consistent with observations of 'morphing' between different shapes..  as
well as their ability to 'summon' more box-orbs, apparently ex nihilo..

Hence we'd be dealing with macroscopic quantum-classical systems,
highly-entangled photo-electric couplings - polaritons, magnons and spinons
etc. - aggregate low-entropy states with large-scale baryonic ensembles
sharing few, unitary wave-functions, tightly controlled, but still
susceptible to ie. the observed position / momentum indeterminacies and
resulting quantum leaps;  where the object disappears then reappears either
instantaneously, or sometimes even within the same video frame, thus
appearing to be in super-position.

Yet another fascinating observation re. their mutual interactions is that
they can enter a mode in which two or more box-orbs appear to become
coherent - their precise motions and quantum-jumps clearly paired, across
some distance - obviously temporarily sharing the same inertial reference
frame but also, clearly-entangled wave-functions;  in this mode more than
ever, the visual impression is of some kind of projection, its actual
source far away, if meticulously (but imperfectly) focused on this
location..  hence the 'jitter' - as if they're not actually bound to
Earth's inertial frame, at least, not the ground anyway.

All these observations are categorised in commented links on the list, see
for yourselves.  Gotta say though, the most shocking revelation to me is
these miniature variants - i'm not kidding, no more than a cubic
millimeter, yet possessing ALL of the characteristic properties of the
larger versions..  so, just what are the limits, there - how small can they
get?

Final thought:  now this IS crazy - i mean, even i have little confidence
in what i'm about to relate, but it is what it is so i'm just throwing it
out there - the JWST calibration shots of Jupiter show myriad large,
box-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:
> Hi,
> [snip]
> >
> >..if i may insist however, this thing below is not a fire lantern:
> >https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TiowRwpwVAQ=6s
>
> Indeed, but it may be a box-kite with an essentially invisible nylon
> tether. They come in a variety of shapes, sizes,
> and materials.
> [snip]
> If no one clicked on ads companies would stop paying for them. :)
>
>

Re: [Vo]:It's Time We Talked About the Box-Orbs..

[Vibrator !]

The issue is that a graviton would be a spin-0 gauge boson, commuting only
attractive force;  a spin-1 mediator of both attractive and repulsive
forces is obvs already fulfilled by photons or virtual photons.

Qualitatively, 'gravity' reduces to a time-constant rate of exchange of
signed momentum, or ± h-bar.

'Reactionless' refers to these craft's propellant-less accelerations;  no
reaction matter appears in optical, IR or thermal imaging.  They must,
therefore, be exchanging momentum directly with some fundamental force
constant (EM constant alpha?) and time.  F=mA reduces to an I/O ± dp/dt
differential, and so effectively-unilateral forces are thus possible;  the
tangible example i keep coming back to being 'pumping a swing', wherein you
can auto-accelerate the swing by applying reactionless torques via the
ice-skater effect (changing mass radius) to cause an upswing vs downswing
period asymmetry, the per-cycle momentum gain equal to that difference
times the gravitational constant;  obviously, non-constant angular momentum
about a fixed axis is only so useful, but it's a proof of principle that
momentum can be sourced or sunk from / to fundamental force constants and
time, and again, insofar as UAP are solid flying objects, they're another
demonstration of that principle.

So i believe i'm correct - a hovering UAP that is reflecting radar and
light must be composed of baryonic matter, even if in a controlled,
low-entropy state - meta-materials are obvs implied by the observed
properties - and is thus susceptible to mutual gravitation;  if it's not
actually falling then by definition it's accelerating upwards at exactly 1
G.  This does nothing to impede the reciprocal mutual gravitation of the
planet towards the UAP, hence if it's holding precisely-constant altitude
then the entire system - UAP, planet and everything bound to it - must be
accelerating 'upwards' relative to that point on the globe;  the
acceleration obvs equal to the gravitational pull of the UAP divided by the
mass of the Earth, hence infinitesimal, yet real and non-trivial..


TL;DR - you 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 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
> >from the zero momentum frame
> >
> > • from within either inertial frame it's a uniform acceleration
> >(Galileo's principle)
> >
> > • a hovering UFO exhibiting no reaction matter is nonetheless a
> >massive body in a gravity field, thus being accelerated downwards at 1
> >G like anything else
>
> This statement contains a couple of unproven assumptions.
> 1) You don't know that's is reactionless.
> 2) You don't know that it's being accelerated upward as well as being
> pulled down by gravity. It may actually be
> canceling the effect of gravity on the craft. After all, we don't really
> know anything about the actual nature of
> gravity, or any of the forces for that matter.
> We have a few constants and some nice formulae, but no real understanding
> of the actual nature of forces. E.g. why do
> like charges repel, and unlike charges attract?
> [snip]
> If no one clicked on ads companies would stop paying for them. :)
>
>

Re: [Vo]:It's Time We Talked About the Box-Orbs..

[Vibrator !]

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 is the same type from that vid
last week', etc. etc.

This very basic methodology - a simple case of 'having to start somewhere'
with such an enormous data set available - has revealed that most
sightings, currently, if not historically, are of these mysterious box-orbs.

This is a new type of UFO, to me, anyway.  In fact, i don't see ANYONE else
describing it as a widespread phenomenon - as i say, most only seem to get
reported, and commented upon, as if they were unique examples - no one else
has made the link that they're actually ubiquitous!

This thus qualifies as a new scientific discovery, one that directly speaks
to the deepest, most profound questions of natural philosophy (not least
conservation of momentum and energy).

So i'm here presenting that list - primarily drawing attention to the
prevalence of these hitherto unheard-of 'box-orb' captures.

What's so stunning is that most of the boxes / cubes are caught in broad
daylight, or at least, twilight.

This enables us to clearly identify that they're the same type of craft -
obviously harder to do when all you can see is a glowing orb at night.

If you click on the link to the list in the first post, it'll pop up a test
file full of URL's - all you need do is copy-paste them into a browser.
What you'll see is DOZENS of independent video captures of flying
fish-tanks in broad daylight.

Mostly, they're cubes by day, and glowing orbs by night.  However this rule
is not absolute - some vids show cubes by night, and orbs by day.  Most
orbs are orange or white, yet many other colours are seen;  some are seen
changing colour.  Some behaviours seem colour-typed.

So the Tik Tok link you actually clicked on - the one, single link i hadn't
truncated (how lazy are we?) - i only referenced because it's a second
example of two box-orbs linked by a tether.  If you complete the YT link of
the other example, you'll see the same thing, different time and place.

I'm well aware all of the comments on Tik Tok identify it as fire lanterns
- social media is for numbskulls, i've never had any social media accounts
and never will, it's a horde of mindless ignoramuses and no one else has
seen this list of related examples;  like me when i saw what i thought were
fire lanterns, it seems the most likely explanation if you don't know any
better - Chinese lanterns are a thing, and UFO's are woo - precisely your
logic too, perfectly rational response - but the whole point of this list
is to PROVIDE that context necessary for proper analysis, ie. comparison
with other phenomenon.

Show me a type of fire lantern that looks anything like these things..  i
mean, it's a glassy, iridescent, semi-opaque box or rectangle -  a
hexahedron, bashically - sometimes appearing dark-metallic or titanium-like
- often seen rotating or tumbling on all three axes, that momentarily
disappears then reappears as it flies.  When seen in groups, this optical
'phasing in/out' sometimes synchronises between objects.

After adding dozens of examples to the list, last week YT threw up the
first one showing a tethered pair.  I'll repeat the full link here so you
can just click on it (sorry if this is video-bombing the page for anyone
else):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZubVcEHtBlw

Note how, like the others, they phase in and out in sync - again, use comma
and period keys (< and >) for frame advance/back while paused.  These are
categorically the same type of craft seen in many of the other links.  The
only difference is that clearly-visible tether.

People see tethered flying boxes and think "fire lanterns!" by default - as
i say, i would've too, if i didn't know any better.  Getting folks
informed, in order to be able to analyse these things in their proper
context, is my whole raison d'etre, here..

But that was just one, perhaps freak, example of the tethering behaviour -
maybe one had broken down and was under tow or something.  So you can
appreciate my excitement when i found another, again on YT, this time in a
compilation video.  That video referenced its sources, and the segment
showing this second tethered pair happened to come from Tik Tok, so, since
it didn't require a sign-up to view, i linked the source rather than the
timestamped YT video segment..

So, while everyone else is stuck on "what is it?" and "it's fire
lanterns!", i'm the only person (apparently) aware of this broader context,
and other related examples.  I'm perhaps the only person who realises that
it's most definitely, categorically NOT fire-lanterns.  That's way too much
responsibility, hence why i'm here, trying to SHOW (not just 'tell') other
smart people.   That's why i'm reporting it here, and not on

Re: [Vo]:It's Time We Talked About the Box-Orbs..

[Vibrator !]

> 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
these connections..  The links won't last forever tho (none of them are mine)..

I suspect you only clicked that one link with a complete URL, showing
two tethered
cubes, every comment below exclaiming it was fire lanterns..  that was
your perusal
of the evidence, and the basis for your conclusion..

..if i may insist however, this thing below is not a fire lantern:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TiowRwpwVAQ=6s

I didn't want to bomb-post embedded videos, hence the truncated links.
Check 'em out,

tho, they'll tickle you i promise..

> But don't look up to the sky while riding that motorbike.
> You might finish up like the astronomer in Aesop's fable.

Thing is, criss-crossing the country all day and night for three decades,
i've seen Chinese lanterns
many times.. always assuming this was the most prosaic explanation for
orange orbs.  No matter
how far out in the sticks or how late at night, basically presuming that
most fire lanterns were released
by farmers.. for reasons..  because they're a thing, and LGM aren't.

But what the evidence above shows is that a)  some actually ARE aliens -
these flying orbs DO exist -
and b)  that they're the same phenomenon as the flying cubes.  They're
squares by day, disco lights
by night.

As such, this is much bigger news than LENR, OU or reactionless propulsion
- likely encompassing
all these things, but certainly more besides - here's copious, visual
evidence of new physics, beyond
the SM, in action.

We don't understand anything of these visitors' technology - what they're
doing, how or why.  Their
evident presence however prioritises these questions.  It's the alternative
- wilful ignorance - that's dumb.

It's much like discovering that Bessler's wheel was actually a genuine case
of mechanical OU, now
forgotten and entirely dismissed..  evidence of physics BTSM, right under
our noses, if not low-hanging
fruit;  a tantalising tease on what's possible, outside the box of today's
paradigm.. there in the offing..

How many times have YOU seen and ignored orange orbs on the assumption fire
lanterns were the
most-likely explanation?  Because in retrospect, given the evidence here..
maybe they've seen you too..?

:P

Re: [Vo]:It's Time We Talked About the Box-Orbs..

[Vibrator !]

Latest additions under "indistinct boxes / orbs / others" include this gem,
uploaded just now:

watch?v=QJkMBZq41Yo

..so, these are unambiguously your standard flying orbs; definitely not
drones, yet under intelligent control, and certainly not floating passively
like Chinese lanterns.

They periodically disappear then reappear, just as the cubes do when seen
in broad daylight.

Like the other video caught at dusk / dawn, the low light here places the
objects right in their cube / orb transition zone, if my association of
these UAP is correct.

So, let's take a closer look at what happens when they disappear and
reappear, OK?

In this first shot, we see five objects;  to my eyes at least, they have an
approximate 'square' outline, but most folks are just going to identify
these as amorphous 'glowing orbs':

https://i.ibb.co/yy5JRzM/frame1.png


In the very next frame, the four orange orbs have dimmed substantially;
 the greener one to the right remaining bright.  The square outline of the
dimmed orbs is now clearer:

https://i.ibb.co/60T3J4y/frame2.png


In the subsequent frame, the fading orbs disappear completely:

https://i.ibb.co/YyZBg08/frame3.png

..momentarily the green orb remains alone, for six more frames, until the
others begin to fade back in again:

https://i.ibb.co/VqbfySm/frame4.png

Here, the square outlines are clearer still.

The 'glowing orb' UAP *is* the 'cube' UAP, folks.. *this is no longer a
hunch.!*

Are they boxes, or orbs?

*Yes*!  Yes, they are.

Apart from when they're invisible.  (or 'sky-coloured', anyway.. active
camo maybe?)

Cubes by day, orbs by night, but same-same, and birds of a feather..

Anyone still think i'm seeing things?  Just 9 hrs ago, another video was
posted, this time showing how these things are arriving here:

watch?v=ozVk-I-WThg

So, continuing the basic premise that if we could watch that in daylight,
we'd see block-shaped drones dropping out of - god knows what, a saucer? -
whatever the upper red orb was actually concealing..  just last week, a
video was uploaded that on first impressions i would assume had been
composited, owing simply to being 'too good to be true', however look at
what it shows:

watch?v=UM8BfiLSgAc=99s

..in broad daylight, this video's showing us precisely what the
already-confirmed hypothesis predicts - white, square / rectangular child
objects released by a saucer, all of which exhibit non-Newtonian motion..
 so if this last one is a hoax, it seems remarkably prescient regardless..

I'm not resting a case on any one piece of evidence, but the plurality and
consistency of examples here - sufficient for making testable (verifiable!)
hypotheses - seems overwhelming..  it's basically categorical, no?

Might not be an 'attack', but by any reasonable definition, Earth is
currently under alien invasion;  they're being seen everywhere, on a daily
basis.

Lue Elizondo notes that they're increasing in frequency and number.
Although i've only been at this a few weeks, it seems hard to disagree.

In recent weeks i've seriously considered Elizondo's suggestions of,
perhaps, a 'shadow biosphere' that was somehow also native to Earth, or at
least Sol, if perhaps with an inter-dimensional aspect.. however i don't
think he was espousing the idea so much as including it by way of example
of 'all things on the table'.  Isn't it just much more plausible however
that these box-orbs are being deposited by larger craft, as the last two
vids there imply?  Pretty classic 'invasion-y' type behaviour, no?  Maybe
the payloads are just recon drones, for now..  maybe these are mostly what
we're seeing..

As already alluded to in the list, box-orbs seem to be associated with
saucers..  it's the same tech-base, not different / other aliens..  the
same ones are responsible for saucers, cubes, and orbs..  (and probably
ghost rockets and tic tacs too, IMHO)

It's not some cosmopolitan 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
> > world. It wouldn't surprise me if you even have a small Chinese
> community
> > in W3.
>
> Always appreciate your thoughts, but these things defy such easy dismissal.
>
> I've specifically avoided listing most orange-orb sightings for just this
> reason; sure, some may be consistent with Chinese lanterns or flares, but
> neither can repeatedly switch on and off, or demonstrate the controlled
> independent flight seen in some of those examples.
>
> In spite of this, as i say, i suspect some, if not most orange / red orbs
> that aren't easily written off are in fact these same craft - box-orbs -
> albeit seen to glow by night.
>
> And quite independently, the orange-orb vids are at least as common as
> box-orbs in their own right.  You c

Re: [Vo]:It's Time We Talked About the Box-Orbs..

[Vibrator !]

nk Grimer <88.fr...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Chinese fire lanterns. Which explains why they are seen all around the
> world. It wouldn't surprise me if you even have a small Chinese community
> 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_my_town/video/7104013293471304965?lang=en
>>
>> Same flight config too.. as if the lower one were perhaps siphoning some
>> fluid from the upper one..?  JK, no idea what these things are, what
>> they're doing, or why.
>>
>> Bloody exciting time to be alive tho eh?  To be able to cross-reference
>> UAP corroborations from independent encounters the world over, updating on
>> a daily basis like this..  All i'm doing is LOOKING at available evidence.
>> And categorising what i see.  Little else. Ain't spent a dime on it, yet
>> within weeks i've achieved a level of certainty NASA and SETI could only
>> dream of:  this is definitely real, technological, and not us..
>>
>> Just like that, the greatest mysteries answered..  i'm reeling, dazed, in
>> a slight state of shock here..  awake to a new reality..
>>
>> What it means, and what to make of it, pffft..  where to start?  Best not
>> think about it and carry on?  The further questions though - not least the
>> potential for communication - is too alluring..   seeing these things is
>> literally paradigm-shifting..
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:It's Time We Talked About the Box-Orbs..

[Vibrator !]

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 upper one..?  JK, no idea what these things are, what
they're doing, or why.

Bloody exciting time to be alive tho eh?  To be able to cross-reference UAP
corroborations from independent encounters the world over, updating on a
daily basis like this..  All i'm doing is LOOKING at available evidence.
And categorising what i see.  Little else. Ain't spent a dime on it, yet
within weeks i've achieved a level of certainty NASA and SETI could only
dream of:  this is definitely real, technological, and not us..

Just like that, the greatest mysteries answered..  i'm reeling, dazed, in a
slight state of shock here..  awake to a new reality..

What it means, and what to make of it, pffft..  where to start?  Best not
think about it and carry on?  The further questions though - not least the
potential for communication - is too alluring..   seeing these things is
literally paradigm-shifting..

Re: [Vo]:It's Time We Talked About the Box-Orbs..

[Vibrator !]

> 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
from the zero momentum frame

 • from within either inertial frame it's a uniform acceleration
(Galileo's principle)

 • a hovering UFO exhibiting no reaction matter is nonetheless a
massive body in a gravity field, thus being accelerated downwards at 1
G like anything else

 • ..it's just also applying a cancelling 1 g upwards acceleration..

 • ..yet because this acceleration is effectively reactionless, the
craft is now towing the planet


So although it appears, from ground observation, that the craft is
hovering motionless, in reality it is specifically holding height
relative to the ground / planet, and although it's not accelerating
towards the earth, there's nothing to stop the mutual gravitation of
the planet back into the gravity well of the suspended craft..

The instant you have a unilateral force or momentum change active in
an otherwise-closed system, the net system momentum is no longer
constant..

So if a ship's hovering over earth, counteracting its own gravitation
does nothing to impede the mutual gravitation of the planet, relative
to which if it is holding distance, it must, therefore, be
accelerating away from at equal speed to its approach.

Hovering ('anti-gravity' in the naive conception), reactionless
propulsion or energy creation / destruction via the exploitation of
unilateral forces, alters the planets resting momentum state.

You could arguably undo a change afterwards by applying an equal
opposing change some time later, but any non-zero period between
alters our trajectory or axis or spin rate or whatever over what it
would've been if we'd stuck with aerodynamics and rocketry..etry

[Vo]:It's Time We Talked About the Box-Orbs..

[Vibrator !]

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?

Reverse-engineering somewhat from first principles:  the object has mass
and thus *is* gravitating - shedding momentum to gravity and time at a rate
of 9.80665 kg-m/s per kg of gravitating mass, per second - yet if it's not
accelerating relative to earth and its mass is also constant, then it is
simultaneously accelerating upwards, gaining momentum from _some other_
fundamental force constant (such as the EM constant, alpha), in equal
opposite magnitude.

To put it another way, it must be applying an upwards acceleration - ie. a
time rate of change of velocity being a rate of signed momentum exchange,
or +/- dp/dt - thus implying that it must also be sinking equal rates of
counter-momentum to gravity and time.

We should reserve a degree of concern however that arresting an object's
gravitational acceleration by any means of inertial suspension *does
nothing,* in principle, to prevent the earth's own mutual gravitation
towards _it._

Obvioushly, gravitational interactions are mutually inter-reactive - the
larger body's accelerations are smaller, but real and non-trivial - and
nested within each gravitational interaction there is an inertial
interaction, N3 demanding perfect symmetry of momentum and counter-momentum
deltas at all times;  lifting a weight 'up' pushes the planet 'down' -
we're really just prising 'em apart - and likewise both masses accelerate
back together when the weight's dropped.


_In other words,_ levitating masses may be 'towing' the planet.  These
things may be tug-boats, of sorts, applying small steering corrections to
Earth's trajectory or resting momentum state..  even inadvertently, if not
purposefully, this is a seemingly-inevitable implication of the physics we
know.

The act of merely hovering a massive body like this is not entirely
passive, the object is _not_ stationary, but is rather holding constant
distance to ground, which along with the rest of the planet is continually
accelerating into the gravity well of a massive body that is not
counter-accelerating reciprocally back towards it.

As such, this behaviour should not be regarded as entirely passive, but
rather interactive / manipulative..  and the fact that it is also
'surreptitious' (self-evident from basic physics but not negotiated with or
communicated to us), naturally raises suspicion.  Are these permanent
changes to our resting momentum state, and the ultimate fate of the planet?
 'Momentum' being among the most conserved of field properties..  are they
an incidental and inconsequential side-effect of a benevolent scientific
mission, or else the mission objective itself?  And _then_ is the purpose
in our interest or theirs?

These things potentially have us on a leash.. basic physics tells us that
what superficially _looks_ like 'anti-gravity' is, in practice, more akin
to a tug applying a course-correction via a tractor-beam.

Re: [Vo]:It's Time We Talked About the Box-Orbs..

[Vibrator !]

 > 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
phenomena may pose a risk to flight, and hence justifying proper study,
funding and congressional hearings etc.; what the pilot described was 'a
dark metallic-looking cube in a transparent sphere, the cube's corners
touching the inside surface of the sphere'.

Dall-E 2 found it an evocative description anyway:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ge245DlIXrrab5GtsjBZWPVJa57--jlg/view?usp=sharing

If you check out the objects i'm listing under that category, these things
look quite distinct from tic-tacs per the Nimitz / Fravor encounters.  I've
watched quite a few perplexing tic-tac vids since then, even though i've
not got around to adding them on the list yet;  the only reason for this
however is that i'm simply compiling from the daily round-up - whatever's
been uploaded to YT in the past 24 hrs, i scan past the junk and list
whatever's left under whichever category best fits..  IE. YouTube's been
showing me a lot of box-orbs, but very few tic-tacs (that weren't actually
aphids 10 mm from the lens, anyway).  The box-orb videos OTOH couldn't be
explained by anything else - did you see the 'tethered' pair i added to the
list last night?  watch?v=ZubVcEHtBlw   Incredible, yet so enigmatic,
unlike anything one could dream up..  much less conflate with a tic-tac..

So sure, tic tacs are fascinating.. but just on the basis of what's
actually getting documented on video by multiple independent sources,
box-orbs seem to be increasingly ubiquitous.

A sighting in London was uploaded the other day (it's on the list), caught
by what looks like some builders in south London somewhere, the day before,
one in Scotland.. so since i work in central London i've been looking up
all day whenever outside, just on the off-chance..  that non-zero
probability that an alien craft might just suddenly appear overhead, right
there in the middle of Fitzrovia on a bright summer's day, derp..
seriously tho, on the commute in and out, on me lunch break, i'm scanning
the skies, potato-cam at the ready..  craning me neck all day, ain't seen a
thing all week..

Came home tonight, did the usual search on last 24 hrs uploads, and whaddya
know, another sighting in London, this time slap-bang in the middle of -
you guessed it - Fitzrovia: watch?v=oGs6JgFzD0M=19s - basically right
over my workplace!  WTF?  I must've been indoors at the time, how
frustrating is that though eh?   Trolling me..  like i say, you couldn't
make it up.   Can't make out much detail from that potato cam either, but i
doubt mine would be much better.  Besides, do you risk taking eyes off it
to fumble for the camera in the first place?  Dilemma..   There's other
folks filming it around him tho so maybe clearer vids will surface from
this incident..

On the subject of potatoes, don't bother trying to watch these on a phone
as you need a decent monitor, especially for ie. Engine TwentySeven's 4K
videos: watch?v=1_1FcVD6KmI - the problem is that modern phones have great
resolution but lack optical zoom, so you can only 'zoom in' on the
fixed-resolution image, not 'true' zoom, hence you need to be able to use
browser zoom (ie. hold ctrl and spin the mousewheel or tap the '+' key or
whatevs) - otherwise you're just seeing white dots on an already-tiny phone
screen..  much like tic-tacs i guess.

These particular UAP i'm most concerned about are characterised by this
consistent 'square', cubic or rectangular / polyhedron aspect, and
transient disappearance / reappearance, usually while rotating or tumbling,
their axial motions independent of their flightpaths, so ie. not apparently
a matter of flight-control for example.

The recent UAP at Miami beach may have been widely-mentioned as a tic-tac
incident, however it looks to me more like another box-orb:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8UNK0rhKxsE

This is far from exact science of course but as a mere identification /
classification exercise - just placing like with like - the existence and
sheer prevalence of these craft seems an amazing yet unnoticed revelation
right under our noses..  IOW, some term describing this particular
phenomenon - as distinct from tic-tacs, orbs, saucers, cigars or black
triangles etc - SHOULD be familiar to all, yet isn't, as you well
illustrate.  That, sir, is entirely my point.  How many shiny metal saucers
or black triangles that didn't look instantly gake and fay have been
uploaded lately?  Or tic-tacs for that matter?  Fast-movers make for ropey
vids by their very nature, usually reduced to an indistinct streak.  Yet
there's unambiguous CUBES the size of family cars floating about in our
skies, pretty much everywhere, daily.. and so a conspicuously-absent
category of UAP in the popular conscience.   You're 

[Vo]:It's Time We Talked About the Box-Orbs..

[Vibrator !]

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 exposé on the Nimitz
encounters, curious, but never been any kind of UFO nut.  So i began
watching some of these YT suggestions, and quickly found myself bookmarking
one or two that seemed extraordinary, yet legit.

Now i'm hooked - all the old bookmarks have gone into a list of URL's of
vids i've 'confirmed' (obviously documenting the same phenomena, and not
obviously composited, edited or faked in any way), and every day i check
for the most recent UAP / UFO sighting uploads and add the latest URL's to
the bottom of each list under each categorised sub-section.

I'd recommend anyone with an interest have a gander at ALL of these links,
but i especially want to draw your attentions to those listed under 'boxes
/ box-orbs'.

There's substantial visual evidence here to suppose that many of the
various 'glowing orb' sightings - perhaps 'ghost rockets' too - are
actually one and the same entities as these 'box-orbs';  that they appear
as these shadowy polyhedra by day, and orbs of various kinds by night.  If
so then there's too many different headers in my list, however the number
of new headers isn't really increasing;  the number of entries listed under
each one IS, and none moreso than 'box-orbs'.  If not every day, then every
other day, new examples are uploaded to YT.  But regardless of whether they
may all be the same thing in different guises, all i can do is categorise
by what i can see, and yet on the basis of that evidence alone, most UAP
are box-orbs;  there's no two ways about it. That section now boasts 19
different videos, all showing the same enigmatic phenomena - flying boxes,
either alone or in groups, with certain distinct visual characteristics
such as appearing in 'lighter' and 'darker' shades - perhaps showing
different faces whilst rotating - as well as some degree of morphing,
mostly into 'rectangular' polyhedra (hexahedra?) and periodic disappearance
/ reappearance (at least in optical wavelengths - it seems many UAP retain
persistent IR profiles however, even when invisible to optical range, but
most sightings are obviously captured on cell phones). Some are caught
close-up, others only as indistinct white dots in 4K vids, but which you
can thus zoom-in on to see more details..  it's definitely the same
phenomena being recorded, the world over..

So here's the list:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RXOssOGtruFqA1h8TA_eWqMaPgF4unUQ/view?usp=sharing

I'm updating it daily - again, most new additions are joining the bottom of
the 'box-orb' list, so work bottom-up from that first list for the latest
sightings.

This thing's global, and like Luis Elizondo says, seems to be increasing in
frequency and number.  It's obviously technological, and not 'us'.  They
don't just float or meander, but also demonstrate spectacular non-Newtonian
controlled manoeuvres, moving with intent and purpose in coordinated ways.

No one else seems to be talking about them, or even noticing the
predominance of this particular UAP.  You've got your basic saucers, your
cigars and various 'foo-fighter' and 'ghost rockets' etc..  but who ever
heard of 'box-orbs' before?  Yet they're the pre-eminent UFO by far..  just
look at the numbers over the short period i've been at this.

Fermi's paradox is at least partly solved, then; they're here already!
We're not alone.. and we're very much the upstarts by the looks of things.
There's no longer any room for ambivalence or agnosticism as far as i can
see, the sheer weight of independently-corroborating evidence here is
undeniable.  They now seem so common there's every chance you or anyone you
know may see them, if you just look up often enough.  I'm following
skywatchers using all-night CCTV trained on the sky who are catching
sightings most nights.  YouTube channel k'eyush The Stunt Dog - a channel
i've known for years that's never had anything to do with any kind of woo -
posted a sighting the other day (it's on the list), they're literally
EVERYWHERE, all skies in all countries.

'Invasion' doesn't necessarily imply 'attack', but they certainly seem to
be on recon if nothing else..  More than this, one can only speculate..
yet we're talking about an intruder we now know is in our house!   This,
surely, should disconcert us..

Sooo..  anyone make it through those links?  Am i taking crazy pills here
or what?

Re: [Vo]:Stimulated emission and Pre-Quantum Physics

[Vibrator !]

> 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 started..

Re: [Vo]:Stimulated emission and Pre-Quantum Physics

[Vibrator !]

in add: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/quantum/schr.html

IE. equivalent, not conflicting..

Re: [Vo]:Stimulated emission and Pre-Quantum Physics

[Vibrator !]

> 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 stimulated
emission / absorption mode as playing the predictability of
wavefunction's evolution by constantly resetting it at a fixed freq..
or you could probably describe the behaviour in terms of QED and
Feynman diagrams too i expect, all complimentarily w/o conflict.  You
can describe orbital transition energies classically /
relativistically, or Lenz's law in terms of relativistic
self-interaction of a current loop invoking length contraction / time
dilation, or in terms of time-conservation of ambient quantum
momentum, charge and energy..  the whole point about zombie-cat-boxes
being that they're an over-extrapolated conclusion from what is only a
formal approximation;  atoms and photons are obviously real, but is
the wavefunction?  So there's no real dichotomy..  all roads lead to
Rome, we know the SM's incomplete and we're not seeing all the pieces
yet, but the realism / objectivism debate is divided along more
fundamental lines on the nature of causal determinism and the
outstanding possibility (if not logical prerequisite) of non-local
hidden variables..  which in turn segues into philosophical debate re.
distinctions between 'indeterminability' as an inevitable consequence
of conservation and finite nature of quantum information (ie. per
Zeilinger et al), versus the nihilistic anarchy of objective
indeterminism;  you can guess which side of the fence i'm on (tho not
a Bohm fanatic; pilot waves or some variation, perhaps.. but his later
metaphysics stuff i don't subscribe to).

The classic DSE using an electron gun and phosphor-plated screen has
to remain the benchmark gold-standard for demonstrating the limits of
classical physics though - ie. it cannot explain how particles / waves
self-interact even when their transits are separated out in time.  If
not for this singular crazy (dumbfounding!) result, we wouldn't be in
a situation where most physicists are ready to accept such an
oxymoronic imposition as 'acausal determinants'..  but in for a penny,
in for a pound eh..

[Vo]:Stimulated emission and Pre-Quantum Physics

[Vibrator !]

> 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 of
> stimulated emission can also arise in a classical (pre-quantum) setting
> when a suitable model of the atom is used.

The key point about stimulated emission is that it exploits the suspension
of superposition exclusion to enable an aggregate system to cohere under a
unitary wavefuntion; the corollary effect being coherent absorption, such
that the initial plasma system can be classically described right up to the
population inversion:  from which point all electrons are bouncing between
peak energy and stable bottom, emitting and absorbing essentially the same
photons in sync..

..so the quantum / classical threshold there is Pauli exclusion; the
spontaneous photomultiplication resulting from collective coherence of the
electron population is a pretty fundamental kind of 'resonance', not your
average harmonic oscillator.

On this key point about coherent absorption as well as emission, see Green
at al "Limiting photovoltaic monochromatic light conversion efficiency"
2001, noting that in PV cells for which recombination is mainly radiative,
a stimulated emission regime could take efficiency arbitrarily close to the
Carnot limit;  his team down in Oz are currently up to ~70% - again, for
monochromatic (basically laser) light - with increasing applications in ie.
wireless power transmission, electrical isolation / firewalling etc., and
obvs much greater range (albeit limited to LoS) than classical inductive
transmission techniques.

A stimulated emission mode / regime is an inherently quantum-classical
system, a unique means of corralling quantum systems distinct from Faraday
and Maxwell et al; the system's propensity to begin lasing a direct
consequence of the quantisation of energy & momentum:  in the tensioned
'population inversion' state, ideally at least, a single photon of further
input energy will inevitably trigger a cascade of absorption and emission
because there's nowhere else for this conserved quantised energy to go, ie.
further input energy catalyses a cyclic phase transition between high and
low-energy states, because the transitions are quantised, and because a
whole bunch of fermions are behaving as a kind of extended quasi-boson,
holding the same quantum-energy states at the same time.

It's that force-feedback dynamic, like a turbine, generating this
low-entropy livewire state of perfect photoelectric synchrony.. coherent
emission AND absorption, en masse..

On a bit of a tangent perhaps, but in his later years GC Huth posited that
the retinal cells of the fovea may form a kind of phase-conjugate mirror,
which may have thought-provoking implications for ie. the nature of eye
contact between sentients, optic nerves essentially being extensions of
cortex:  what if electrons in remote rhodopsin discs are entangled by the
same photons?  'A twinkle in the eye'..  'windows on the soul'.. (woo-wavy
hands)

Re: [Vo]:Another Irish FE Firm?

[Vibrator !]

 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 high-mu, high-freq and
hence low-Sv inductors with minimal remanence / retentivity.   Anomalous
self-induction must be arising under some very a-typical circumstances if
no one's noticed it previously.. and we're not talking micro-teslas here,
he's claiming a 400 - 500% gain in flux density, sufficient to turn a
gennie..

The claim seems eminently falsifiable though, reducing to this singular
putative exploit - whatever the specific grade of material he's sourcing
will have a B/H graph in its spec sheet, since this is its whole raison
d'etre, the very properties it's designed and purposed for.  So, find out
exactly which material it is, download the spec sheet, and check for a
sudden 500% jump halfway up the B/H plot that nobody else but this genius
PhD has noticed for some reason, square in the middle of its designed
operating range there.  Job done, next..

Re: [Vo]:Another Irish FE Firm?

[Vibrator !]

> 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 Rutherford 1895, as harder-pinned ones
give way to the growing induced B of their weaker-pinned neighbors, this
process requiring finite time.  However, this obvs won't induce a stronger
magnetisation density than that of the applied field.. (a feat that might
seem to imply coercivity or permeability are going into negative territory)

This same point about B-max being a limited function of applied H applies
equally to spontaneously-forming dipole chains.. but in a 3D matrix
neighboring aligned domains are in cross-feild alignment, like little
magnets stacked side-by-side same-end up, hence a mutually-repulsive
stressed higher-energy state - not unlike storing elastic potential energy
in the intramolecular bonds where these orbitals are aligning;  this is
part of the input work done against coercivity in ferromagnetic materials,
and why the remanance has a Curie point.

This is why it's an issue; though it may cost nothing in principle merely
to render a force field, if it then performs displacement then work (F*d)
is being done, hence runaway self-induction raises free PE.

Colour me skeptical anyhoos.

[Vo]:Another Irish FE Firm?

[Vibrator !]

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 magnetisation.  If the H field is active
as from a coil or solenoid, Lenz's law applies and any change in induced B
applies back-EMF to the coil, thus loading its power supply.  If the H
field is passive however as from a permanent magnet, then the change in
induced B is thermodynamically 'free' - work is being done in reducing the
system entropy aligning domains, by absorbing phonons within the material -
one half of the magnetocaloric effect - and obvs, either way (active or
passive) at absolute zero no change in B is possible, so it looks like
we're not necessarily in controversial territory invoking ambient heat as a
potential source in a case of anomalous self-induction; we could even
invoke Sv in an example: place a small neo onto a piece of rough iron with
appreciable Sv, maybe amp it up to listen in on the Barkhausen jumps as
induced B starts to rise;  point is, induced B is rising AFTER all input
motion has ceased, hence where's the energy coming from to align the
domains against their mutual repulsion?  Because a magnetised material is
in a stressed state..  a higher energy state.  Yet if that energy isn't
coming from Mr Hand, then it's obvs environmental.  2LoT be damned.  In
certain circumstances, anyway.

So the only remaining question is:  how could B rise significantly higher
than applied H?

The question no longer where the energy's coming from, so much as the
magnetising field?  IE. even if we allow it free energy, how can the
induced field be 5x denser than the applied field?  What property might
'electrical steel' have that could facilitate a runaway
self-magnetisation?

[Vo]:Are OU Techs Inadvertently the 'Great Filter'?

[Vibrator !]

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 themselves
when input and output work / energy fields are in inertially-decoupled
reference frames;  IOW, when we invoke any effective workarounds for Lenz's
law or Newton's 3rd and thus 1st laws more generally.

For instance consider that we can largely reverse-engineer an apparent
'perpetual motion gravity wheel' from first-principle inductive reasoning:

 • it gains angular momentum, which can only have come from gravity and
time in an otherwise-closed system of masses interacting about a common axis

 • its energy cost / work done to buy momentum from G*t must be constant,
invariant of some effective range of RPM

Net input energy then scales as the per-cycle constant times the number of
elapsed cycles while net output energy squares with the accumulating
velocity component, the latter plot inevitably intersecting the former at
some unity-threshold velocity, below which we're under-unity and above
which, over.

IOW the singular mechanic responsible for causing the input energy cost of
buying momentum from G*t to square with rising velocity is Newton's 3rd and
thus 1st laws, essentially the time-conservation of momentum, and thus
time-asymmetric interactions with fundamental force fields (those reducing
to a dp/dt) - buying momentum directly from a fundamental force constant
and time, rather than by pushing against some external inertia - offer the
potential of circumventing that constraint.. cutting the tether to the
output inertial frame (ie. the lab / earth).  In the diverging input
inertial frame, accelerating say 1 kg-m² by 1 rad/s might only cost say 1
J, half of it dissipated to inelastic collisions each cycle, hence by the
time you've input 10 J of work you've made 5 J of heat but 50 J of rotKE.

The momentum source is gravity and time, and the energy source whatever
constitutes 'inertia'.

But likewise, we can generalise this fundamental dynamic to ANY OU system -
if O>I energy, that difference has an equivalent corresponding 'velocity'
component; any OU system is thus thermodynamically opened because it is
inevitably gaining momentum along with energy..  that is, any
ostensibly-closed system demonstrating OU (ie. a non-local energy source /
sink) is, by definition, also undergoing anomalous acceleration.  Assuming
the amount of mass is constant, of course..  ie. the momentum gain that
necessarily accompanies an OU energy gain must have equivalent components
of 'mass / inertia' and/or 'velocity'.  You can gain angular momentum by
increasing radius without increasing speed (tho physically any change in
momentum is still an effective 'acceleration'), but just assuming the net
system inertia's constant, if the source is an asymmetric exchange of
signed h-bar with the vacuum then the sink (the FoR of the lab) must be
accelerating, it is that simple and fundamental.

It's a complete coincidence that a super-volcanic eruption on NZ's Alpine
fault line seems to date to around the same time Bessler was demonstrating
his largest most powerful wheel on the exact polar opposite side of the
globe during winter 1717.  Geologists haven't yet pinned down a tighter
date range.  But it's also an unsettling coincidence that an unprecedented
and devastating pair of tsunamis struck the NW European coastline over
Christmas that winter..

Consider for instance a gravitationally-augmented inertial interaction that
effectively sinks counter-momentum to G*t by employing a falling weight as
a pseudo-stator; ie. apply a 9.81 N vertical force between two 1 kg masses
in free-fall and only the lower one drops - the upper one hovering
motionless in mid-air.. yet surely the planet is still accelerating upwards
in its mutual attraction to the inertially-suspended weight, no?
Cyclically gaining fixed-rate momentum this way might thus apply a vertical
force component to the planet, effectively causing it to accelerate
'upwards' relative to wherever on earth's surface the gravitationally
non-reciprocating exploit is deployed:  planet accelerates 'upwards',
fluids slosh 'downwards', bounce off the southern hemisphere and rebound
back up to the point of origin of the applied linear acceleration..

Remember, there were TWO tsunamis, a fortnight apart.  This was no freak
atmospheric pressure system striking twice in the same locale.. but
obviously a rebound wave of some kind, centered on that part of the globe
for some reason.  Both events - the tsunamis, and the demonstration of
mechanical OU from an apparent gravity wheel - the very definition of
'unprecedented'..  coincident in time, but also consistent WRT potential
means of causation..

FFWD 300 years and once again, at least one example we know of is claiming
robust OU (non-local 

Re: [Vo]:The "hero" LENR experiment ?

[Vibrator !]

> 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 contributors on ECW are planning calorimeters for when they can
get their hands on a magic lamp.. Rossi for his part a) won't give I/O
energy efficiency in terms of total radiative flux, and b) has expressed
doubt that excess heat would be measured anyway, in spite of the
seemingly-incredible lm/W figures claimed.

That's re. the SKLED, an actual (potential) product (1M pre-orders
notwithstanding);  he'll also apparently be showing a PoC of what's
provisionally dubbed 'SKLEP', a general-purpose PSU, though i've no idea if
it's a closed system or runs off the mains for 'reasons' etc., all a case
of wait'n'see eh.

But considering the flux of quantum entropies implicit to the nature of
Pauli exclusion and known electron condensation regimes - ie. the fact that
aggregate-scale condensation of like-polarised electron spins could in
principle cause extreme fluctuations in Fermi numbers - it does seem a
novel potential means of harnessing an effective daemon..

Like all good X files, at least in the 'OU' section, all the most
tantalising evidence is purely circumstantial for now.  But just this old
nugget from ML's interview with Fabiani has GOT to give anyone interested a
semi:

https://animpossibleinvention.com/2015/11/25/rossis-engineer-i-have-seen-things-you-people-wouldnt-believe/

"As a skeptic I started there, and in the beginning Rossi wouldn’t let me
see any data. Gradually he gained confidence since I solved a few problems.
And after some time I found myself with the truth in my hands, having made
some calculations, and I was amazed. I made the same calculations twenty
times and I tried to find the error, but there was no error."

“Now after seeing everything that Rossi is doing, and the levels at which
we have arrived, there really is no error, but already at that time he saw
things that ordinary people were not yet able to see."

“Either you have seen this from the start, or you have to remain puzzled.
If you’re skeptical, then until you have a 100 percent proof, until the
hammer hits your finger, you won’t believe that your adversary has a
hammer."

"I really saw the new frontier of energy. There is nothing in comparison.
You cannot imagine."

This implies there's a functioning - if largely novel - theoretical
framework underpinning the research and whatever results he may be trying
to peddle..  ie. you can calculate gains from first principles if you know
which parameters to juggle..

Frank Acland (ECW's sysop) visited Rossi last week and seems chipper, if
tight-lipped, about the prognosis.. like i say, all circumstantial tho.

RE: [Vo]:The "hero" LENR experiment ?

[Vibrator !]

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 simply widen the goalposts for longer-wavelength virtual particle
interactions causing longer-range couplings - the central conceit being
that D2 is just inherently more 'volatile' to such spontaneous coherences
owing to its natural integer atomic solutions..  almost as tinder for
igniting the real fire, which basically reduces to a doubtless-naive
attempt to generalise Rossi's theory..

Rossi's OU theory i distilled from his paper (of course) helped along with
hints from replies on his JONP that seemed to jell in a consistent
direction.  At some point last year he mentioned that high-dv/dt impulses
were key to stimulating the energy gain conditions, and a few weeks later i
realised this was most likely an allusion to the principle technique for
generating so-called 'cold plasmas', AKA non-thermal or non-equilibrium
plasmas.

These are fascinating systems on multiple levels; there's a new frontier
here of unexplored terrain, if all uphill - racing through a whole series
of closing doors, brief windows of opportunity for forcing a system to
adopt novel configurations through shear thermodynamic expediencies of the
practicalities of quantisation and the finite time requirements of certain
entropic processes such as thermal dissipation.

Yet for all their potential novelty, cold plasma are arguably TRUE
'plasmas' in the literal sense, simply due to the fact that their high
self-reactivity - reminiscent of that of blood plasma - was the reason that
name was borrowed for this 'new state of matter' in the first place;  the
researchers noticed these exotic self-reactive species being spontaneously
generated, were reminded of phages and t-cells or whatevs in blood plasma..
and that's how the name 'plasma' actually came about.  Thus you might say
cold plasmas are plasmas 'of the first kind' - the thermal plasmas with
which we're more familiar are really kind of tagging along on the eponym,
there..

..but i digress; short-width EMF's can selectively energise electrons over
ions (owing to the 1836x mass ratio) and thus very little energy, artfully
applied, can superheat the electron population of a contained plasma to
such temperatures that their thermal phase begins to find resonant modes
with their zitterbewegung phase, providing an axis of quantum-classical
coherence facilitating long-range Cooper-type couplings of like-polarised
electrons to merge spins and so phase-transition to a bosonic state,
sharing Fermi numbers..

Usually only complimentary pairs of electrons can share the same quantum
energy state - this is why the shell-filling formula's 2n² - but short
time-frame manipulations can raise sufficiently-extreme conditions that
like-polarised couplings become not just viable but preferable as the
lowest-possible energy or entropy configuration.

But these circumstances set up an inherent proposition:  push this concept
to its logical conclusion, and in principle from an initial population of
say 1e9 free electrons you could aim to cause all of them to collapse into
a single condensate sharing a unitary quantum state, ie. with a Fermi
number converging towards '1'.   For this, you'd need to super-heat the
population uniformly, preventing hotspots from forming and cooking off
prematurely (since once a phase transition's initiated it sucks all further
input energy), which means allowing sufficient time for input EMF's to
dissipate between the electron population, but all while racing against the
inevitable dissipation of energy to the ion population, which we want to
remain as cool as possible.  So, a technical tight-rope to walk, yet there
it is..

Get it right and electron condensates precipitate out, nucleating around
the slow & heavy protons to form these exotic 'picometric aggregates',
having an emission line consistent with the precessional magnetic moment of
a protium-nucleated thermo-ZBW condensate.

If up-down couplings could in principle halve Fermi numbers of a given
electron population, aggregate coherent up-up and down-down couplings
would, in principle, cause even more precipitous drops in system entropy -
in principle converging to a unitary boson condensing from a super-critical
state - thus vacating quantum energy states that will inevitably be lower
than those of surrounding environmental free electrons, which
instantaneously drop down into these freed-up lower quantum energy states
as they become available..

..when these transient coherences then collapse, the vacuum has to
re-assign unique states to all fermions departing the former quasi-boson,
in the same instant.. all of their former states now reoccupied by
environmental dissipation of quantum entropy.. hence they must necessarily
be assigned 

RE: [Vo]:The "hero" LENR experiment ?

[Vibrator !]

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
electron and nucleus of the deuterium atom passing through the high
magnetic moments of the Ni powder might cause some degree of polarisation
and/or phase coherence, etc. - the basic idea being to cultivate an optimal
fluctuation in Fermi numbers / system entropy relative to surrounding
environmental free electrons (such as in the reactor casing, say), which
may adopt the lower-energy quantum states vacated by the formation of the
condensates; thus forcing the vacuum to assign higher Fermi numbers /
quantum energy states to any fermions exiting a collapsing condensate than
they initially carried into it.  This manifests as an exothermic gain
accumulating over many such cycles..

..until thermal phase begins to approach resonant modes with certain
quantum phases (such as the zitterbewegung phase), resulting in further
quantum-classical coherence and allowing like-polarised electrons to begin
sharing Fermi numbers, so adopting the lowest available energy state but
also causing precipitous fluctuations in system entropy relative to the
environment, surrounding free electrons instantly co-opting lower Fermi
numbers as they become available, and so causing the vacuum to assign
necessarily-higher quantum energy states to fermions exiting
transiently-coherent quasi-bosonic states and yadda yadda runaway feedback
loop.

Vacuum / ZP energy, bashically, a la EM OU - the accelerated / heated
fermions exiting the meta-stable bosonic states being impelled by a flux of
positive h-bar endowed by virtual photons corralled from vacuum per QED -
ie. the actual form of the gain being normal Coulomb repulsion between
decohering fermions, albeit with vacuum-inflated quantum energy states.

LENR effects may be epiphenomenal to the common energy gain principle, an
almost incidental artefact of spontaneous long-range coupling between
nuclei immersed in a matrix of coherent quasi-bosons allowing them to
interact in some sense as if already within one another's proton radii,
presumably conserving baryon number if not initial disposition (again, a
different kind of effective Coulomb exploit).  The key dynamic would simply
be that transiently-stable shared lower-energy quantum states free up Fermi
numbers that any environmental fermions in higher energy states will
automatically drop down into, necessitating the assigning of higher Fermi
numbers to those departing these shared states, thus energising these
collapses with an extra kick of ambient h-bar from vacuum.

This is basically what Rossi's doing via contained cold plasmas -
time-critical selective-energisation of electrons over ions causing
like-polasrised condensates of the former to precipitate out onto the
latter, forming transiently-stable structures with an emission line
consistent with the precessional moment of a protium-nucleated thermo-ZBW
condensate;  decoherence of which (reinstating Pauli exclusion) yields
excess energy, the cycle requiring cool-off time to prevent ions gaining
thermal equilibrium with electrons (via normal dissipation), hence a
discontinuous / pulsed cycle, in order to maintain the formative
'non-thermal plasma' state for consistently culturing these exotic
self-reactive species and the huge fluctuations in internal vs ambient
entropy / quantum energy states their concerted phase transitions apply.
Crucially, the system remains thermodynamically open to (and dependent
upon) the environmental exchange of entropy, 2LoT itself putting the vacuum
in a bind, which then HAS to assign higher energy states to decohering
fermions due to their formerly-vacated states having been reoccupied the
instant any up-up or down-down condensate initially formed..  and so a
'logic trap for nature', type stuff.

TL;DR - mebe the Thermacore runaway was inadvertent EM OU resulting from
exothermic closed-cycling of spontaneous fermion-boson-fermion phase
transitions - perhaps helped along by chance resonance with ambient phonon
phases - between molecular and atomic D2 - until reaching breakdown temps,
at which point the fermionic D2 atoms become bosonic ions and fermionic
up/down electrons which then want - through shear thermodynamic expediency
- to form like-polarised quasi-bosons sharing a unitary quantum energy
state;  everything's jumping back and forth across the Pauli exclusion
barrier in sweeping phase transitions - that's just what happens when a gas
of atomic and molecular D2 gets ionised - and because nature only cares
about balancing the books in the given instant, refermionisation events per
se (such as bosenovas) may be ideal bait'n'switch / shell games for
wrangling unilateral Coulomb repulsion from ZPE.  Rather than a 2LoT
violation, a kind of negentropic open 

Re: [Vo]:The Higgs mode

[Vibrator !]

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 dynamics,
properly observed;  a wood / trees issue.

I'll give two familiar examples;  the first a thermodynamic loss, the
second a gain:

 - consider a small NdFeB attracting over some air gap towards a lump of
pig iron;  the latter having significant Sv (entropy viscosity per
Rutherford)

 - if the displacement completes in less time than the responding rise in B
within the rough iron sample, then we end up with the neo stuck to the
iron, while inside the material, the harder-pinned domains continue to
yield to the increasing alignment of their neighbors

We could monitor these avalanches by amping up the sample and listening in
on the Barkhausen jumps;  when they cease, it's cooked, bashically..

 - if we now prise the neo off and return it to its starting position,
we'll be performing more work (F*d) on the input stroke, than the
interaction output when the samples attracted together..

So the interaction's I/O-asymmetric because the induced field density and
resulting force increased during the resting period, AFTER the output
stroke had already completed, but BEFORE pulling 'em apart again.

We thus did more mechanical work than the EM field (vacuum potential) did!
This is mechanical under-unity - we could cycle this interaction all day
and calorimetry will show the missing input energy as lost - ie. all of it
did mechanical work pulling the magnets apart, so none of it is 'missing',
as such..  we simply didn't get as much work out of the field as we put in,
as it wasn't fully formed yet..


Got that?  Thermodynamic (ie. non-dissipative) loss, from a time-variant
passive magnetic interaction.  'CoE', read it and weep..


Now for the gain scenario:

 - two magnets stacked vertically, stuck to the rim of a horizontal rotor,
opposite poles facing outwards (ie. in the radial plane)

 - solenoid stator with a hi-mu core, facing inwards

 - both magnets attract equally to the stator core, applying positive
torque to the rotor

 - as they reach TDC (min airgap), the solenoid's fired, applying one pole
outwards

 - ..rotor mags are thus equally attracted and repelled - ie. zero net
torque - while counter-EMF's induced in the coil by the retreating magnets
are likewise mutually destructive

Fine-tune stator/rotor level with a micrometer head and a 'scope on the
CEMF.

 - punchline:  magnetic F*d is time-invariant, whereas resistance heating -
the primary input workload - is a time-dependent function of Joule's 2nd
law for heat (Q=I^2rt) and RPM, bashically - ie. per cycle input energy
(duty cycle) is inverse to speed..  so the faster it spins, the less input
heating work for the same magnetic output work.  Et voila,
electro-mechanical OU.

I could alternatively describe a purely passive gain (the Kinetron toy) -
but this is all courtesy of Steorn of course (Sean Mc's "where'd the energy
go?" poser and the v8.3 EM Orbo respectively).


The point here however is the conspicuous absence of any exotic or even
particularly unconventional physics or principles - in both cases it's just
the basic laws of induction doing what they ALWAYS do, all the time
everywhere.

Time-variant asymmetric EM interactions simply play Noether symmetries to
create divergent inertial frames, opening the system to source or sink +/-
h-bar to vacuum..  but ALL EM interactions are vacuum interactions,
period.. equitable or not.


In the fist instance tho, it's just force and time picking up the bill.

Understand this - that OU is tractable and tangible by familiar terms (MUST
be, for heavens sake!) - and any notion that it might require recourse to
exotic new physics surely melts away;  the REAL problem, surely, was that
it was previously simply INTRACTABLE as a concept;  how to even get a
handle on it?  1+1 is not 3, right?  So there HAD to be 'something else',
right? Something that could square the circle.. Except, what if that
'something else' was just the old and familiar, yet in a novel light?

In 1712, Bessler worked out how to gain the same amount of momentum from
gravity and time each cycle, for the same internal work done, in spite of
rising system RPM..  and the fact that KE squares with speed, while his net
input work was simply summing as the per-cycle constant times the number of
elapsed cycles.  Mechanical OU, eighteenth-century style-e, by fixing the
unit energy cost of momentum from G*t to a speed-invariant value.

Simply playing the game, by the rules, in full observance of all
conservation laws, and Noether's theorem.  THAT is the key to over-unity..!
 (and whatever more besides..)

So, not against new physics here.. not on an anti-QFT diatribe or
anything... just don't see that the terms of reference of EM OU needs to
'go there' in 

Re: [Vo]:ufo report to be coming out in a month

[Vibrator !]

> 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 rubber
> ball runs into it will they experience the same deformation?
>


..the point was, which collision would you rather be in - which'll
dissipate the most energy, given that the collision speed is identical
in both cases?

The intention was to prompt one to calculate that the KE's are
calculated relative to the inertial FoR of the ground / planet, not
one another..

..thus colliding one rubber ball with the wall at say 2 m/s dissipates
4x as much energy as either ball colliding head-on at 1 m/s..

..and still twice as much as that of both balls together.  In short,
because energy squares with velocity relative to the ground (not one
another),
2x the absolute speed = 4x the energy.

The intent is to illustrate the dependence of CoE upon CoM and
inertial FoR's tho..

Re: [Vo]:ufo report to be coming out in a month

[Vibrator !]

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) - but if the system is
closed (time-invariant) then only momentum is necessarily conserved;  the
energy may dissipate, but net system momentum is constant wrt time.  Thus
the objective or 'absolute' reference frame is that of the zero-momentum
frame;  it is against this that we plot both energy and momenta, and
relative to which only energy may dissipate.

It's as well to get these fundamentals straight if we're serious about ever
thwarting 'em eh..

..what i'm getting at is that, by definition, any system with
time-dependent momentum exchanges is potentially amenable to thermodynamic
opening..

..and all fundamental force fields are indeed time-constant rates of
exchange of +/- h-bar;  thus with a little guile, time-asymmetric input vs
output phases of a closed-loop trajectory thru an ostensibly static field
(ie. gravity or an H field with zero curl & div) may yield non-zero net
momenta, and thus, potentially, effective auto-acceleration of the zero
momentum frame..  With the FoR itself accelerating a little each cycle, the
accumulating net velocity component adds to that of the 'energy' value in
the stationary (ie. lab) FoR of each cycle's I/O displacements, while each
cycle begins in this pseudo-static rest frame thus always performing the
same work each cycle, gaining the same net momentum for the same input
energy..  net input energy thus sums as the per-cycle input times the
number of elapsed cycles, while net output energy is transposed up by eg.
the square of the velocity component of the FoR divergence.



And yes, this is Bessler's principle, generalised in 1717 - ie. he
accurately predicted it must apply to all OU systems per se.  In his case
however, he was fixing the unit energy cost of momentum from gravity and
time, invariant of some range of system RPM:

 • lifting 1 kg by 1 m always costs 9.81 J, but the amount of momentum it
gains in dropping is a function of the initial speed, and thus the
drop-time * gravity's constant acceleration

 • hence designing a constantly-overbalancing mechanism is trivial;  the
problem is that as RPM's rise, the weights spend less time gravitating each
cycle, so per-cycle momentum yields are naturally inverse to RPM, all else
being equal - at double the speed you spend half as much time being
accelerated each cycle by gravity's constant uniform acceleration..

 • the per-cycle momentum yield thus follows the inverse-square of rising
angular velocity, thus locking the input-energy cost of angular momentum to
its ½Iw² KE value, ie. enforcing I/O or PE:KE symmetry

Mechanical over-unity thus entails some mechanism that does the same work
each cycle to buy the same rise in net momentum for the same input energy,
irrespective of some range of velocity;  if you can gain the same amount of
momentum from gravity and time by lifting and dropping the same amount of
weight 3 times in a row in spite of the net system acceleration, you now
have more KE than PE spent.

There's various techniques that can be employed to manipulate effective
G-times invariant of speed - for instance, the 'ice-skater effect', wherein
changing mass radius changes moment of inertia causing reactionless
accelerations to compensate speed and thus conserve spontaneous net angular
momentum, at the expense of modifying upswing vs downswing periods and thus
net angular momentum per cycle (ie. per swinging / kiiking).  All that is
required to break CoE is that whatever causes these I/O time-asymmetries
relative to whatever the fundamental force field, it must be effectively
reactionless / under conditions of inertial isolation (easier to do in a
rotating plane than a linear one eh)..

..this, because when you get right down to it, CoE in every circumstance we
can think of is being enforced by this constant background of I/O momentum
* time symmetry, via Newton's 3rd law and/or Lenz's law;  the only reason
we observe I/O energy unity is because both the input and output workloads
are usually in the same inertial FoR with constant net momentum.  Thus, the
only way OUT of that FoR is by escape via direct purchases momentum from a
fundamental force constant * time, WITHOUT interaction with any external
inertias or charges.

Divergence of the zero-momentum frame is Bessler's principle, in a nutshell
- if you can pay half a Joule to accelerate 1 kg by 1 m/s 10x on the trot,
you end up with 1 kg @ 10 m/s hence 50 J, for a mere 5 J of net input
work.  Yet it's also a universal axiom that must apply to all OU systems
per se..  so for instance if Rossi's tech is indeed OU, then there's a
divergent input FoR in effect - just because of this fundamental
relationship between the shared components of momentum and energy.  

[Vo]:Bose condensation erosion (BCE)

[Vibrator !]

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 this condensation effect, and would
be precluded in eg. Cu foil..  on that point, note that Al is ~3x
lower-density again..  Bob G. needs to obtain some heavier foils (and a
dished emitter or else waveguide to provide a focal point, maybe)..!

Re: [Vo]:A photo of an EVO on the fly

[Vibrator !]

..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 finite
reserve of momentum & energy in a closed, purely dissipative system, these
particles are continuously energised, active / open systems?

They're most likely being driven by the system's PSU, no?  Then we have the
'other' alternative, that they're essentially self-contained
spontaneously-OU systems driven by a fundamental +/- dp/dt asymmetry /
h-bar from vacuum & time via ie. the EM constant, alpha.

Treating the tracks as if they were made by passive ejecta when they
weren't is obvs gonna lead to crazy conclusions..  you assume car tracks
were powered, not that it must've begun its journey traveling at Mach 9..

The example shown in the first video was obvs moving at below the camera
framerate, thru free space..

And then from tachyons we progress to unicor i mean
'monopoles'..  when i looked at Bob G's tracks supposedly evidencing
monopoles, all i saw was homopolar effects, which he (surprisingly) hadn't
yet considered, conceding it as a more likely explanation..

The apparent reality of robust EM OU from 'picometric aggregates' is surely
enough of a miracle to explain a whole raft of these EVO / SR effects - or
else, only Rossi's special brew are open systems, and everyone else's are
inert closed systems, albeit with apparently-superluminal 'velocity'
components, oh and 'scalar magnetic charge'.. 3 miracles, like buses
they are eh..

The beastie shown in that first vid is certainly a beaut tho - just on 1st
principles, is it a charge component (such as an electron) orbiting a
proton (or many of each perhaps)?  Or else if it's not electrically bound,
then what - gravitationally?  Too extreme, surely (even 69 GeV wouldn't
have that kind of gravity); some kind of ZBW-entangled condensate, then?
Its radius is massive tho - some kind of long-range interaction?
There's no apparent counter-wobble of the linear trajectory (or is there?)
but given eg. the proton / electron mass ratio of over 1800:1 perhaps this
is to be expected..  Would a homopolar effect not also better fit here
tho?  So eg. the orbital angular momentum is part & parcel of the system's
linear momentum, you have a dipole moving thru a magnetic field, LH rule
etc..

Besides, shouldn't tachyons interacting with (pummeling thru) ordinary
matter emit copious braking radiation?  If they're dissipating finite
energy & momentum then they're constantly decelerating so can't stay
superluminal for long (just playing devil's advocate here, causality to the
wind) - do the tracks show such characteristics?

The obviously-entangled pair of tracks from the slide presentation in the
2nd vid is particularly striking - what would spawn such a pair of entagled
EVO's?  Again, some kind of dipolar effect maybe, ie. one spawned from each
pole of the same progenator particle / event? Or were they chiral opposites
/ matter-antimatter?  Or how about opposing precessional moments of
protium-nucleated thermo-ZBW condensates?  ;)

Just trying to apply a bit of Occam here..

[Vo]:New Physics from Information Loss

[Vibrator !]

..dropped the video link there:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1=341Yk4k51uY=emb_logo

Watching this later, right up my street thanks..

[Vo]:The Oumuamua anomaly

[Vibrator !]

Probably been mooted before; but could the anomalous acceleration be due to
outgassing of hydrinos?

RE: [Vo]:what do you think of Goodenouh's self charging batterY?

[Vibrator !]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_B._Goodenough

Doh!  Miles away..  (besides, could've had Josiah Gibbs)..

RE: [Vo]:what do you think of Goodenouh's self charging batterY?

[Vibrator !]

'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 limit imposed by dissipation energy, often designated as
“Boltzmann tyranny.”"

..implying that the energy distribution of the source electrons is somewhat
passive, lacking the high-energy tail / hot electron leakage limiting FET
efficiency, ie. more circumvention than violation..

JG = James Glimm?  Sorry lost me there..

[Vo]:what do you think of Goodenouh's self charging batterY?

[Vibrator !]

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)..

Re: [Vo]:Re: CONCEPTS OF TIME--

[Vibrator !]

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 form of processing

For example 1 and 0 are the 'stuff' of information relative to a digital
IC, and the dimensions of their potential relations are also 'binary', in
that that they're sequential, and / or parallel.

So for instance, going a little deeper into that analogy, the basic
building blocks of digital processing - logic gates, and their associated
truth tables - are mapped to the finite (and thus, again, 'implicit') range
of first-order permutations of basic spatiotemporal relations; ie. "if A=1
when B=1 then C=1" gives us an 'And' logical operation..

..Likewise, if one's on when the other's off, we get 'Or' or perhaps 'Nor',
and so on and so forth.

You get the point; The spatiotemporal dichotomy is inherent to the nature
of 'information' itself.  An inevitable prerequisite for 'processing'.

Whether we consider serial or 'parallel' processing.

Yet it is not 'time and space' that are intrinsically invoked here, but
something even more fundamental:  simultaneity and sequentiality.  A logic
gate's truth table refers to an instant of time - it's essentially timeless
- describing conditions between coextant states, such that, say, C=1 only
when A=1 within a threshold period determined by an onboard clock.

Similarly, processing information necessitates some form of basic 'memory'
in which values can be stored, retrieved and incremented.

IOW, processing depends upon two informational dimensions - one field in
which all the information is coextant, and another in which it is not.

That is to say, processing - and information itself - is intrinsically
serial and parallel.  Written or spoken, a given word is the same
information with different spatiotemporal distributions, but each has a
foot in both domains.

So a spatiotemporal dichotomy is inherent, and built into the nature and
very existence of both 'information', and 'processors' (with no particular
regard to the animate).

Yet we also know from relativity that there's actually no such thing as
true 'simultaneity' - rather, what we may reduce to 'temporal integration
windows' (TIW's) are improvised or coalesced on the fly; in the case of a
typical IC, by a quartz timing crystal, but likewise in our own physiology,
TIW's are built into every level of processing, from primary receptors all
the way up to cortex; every 'now' composed of a myriad flux of smaller
'nows' with progressively shorter TIW's.

'Attention span' is the executive-level TIW, and at the base levels are,
for instance, the shortest intervals we can detect between stimuli - such
as the threshold between a click-train and a 'buzzing sound', or visual
flicker detection;  where a series of distinct events merge into one
continuous event.

Our own data-timing clocks use relative, rather than constant time.

The key timing relation that binds all the information we process together
is factor-of-two symmetry, in both time and space.

This is why we experience 'octave equivalence' between frequencies in that
particular relationship in the spatial domain, and likewise, 'rhythm
entrainment' in the temporal domain.

By definition, 'C2' and 'C4', say, are not 'the same note', they're not
'double or half' one another's frequency, and their ineffably-paradoxical
sensation of equivalence actually pertains to the bandwidth of their
frequency interval being the simplest-possible relationship, resolving to
the shortest-possible (ie. most energy efficient) TIW, resolving every
cycle of the fundamental (the lower freq).

Whereas, the next most consonant interval, the 'fifth' resolves every other
cycle (a factor of three relationship), thus a slightly larger TIW and
slightly more work.  The harmonic series follows the integer number line of
relative factors of a given fundamental.  Thus what we regard as 'harmonic
consonance' is actually just this same weird 'equivalence' we perceive in
octaves; there's only degrees of 'inequivalence' / difference, where
progressively longer frequency resolutions requires longer TIW's and more
energy, sounding more and more 'dissonant' (but really, just 'less
equivalent').

You see that this anomalous perceptual parity forms a kind of 'zero' for
whatever form of processing we're using for metadata - that is, equivalence
/ difference is a kind of analogue 'bit', in that it can have a zero or
variable value, such that we regard C1 and C4 as somehow 'the same' note;
 but where 'pitch class' is a higher-order manifestation of this phenomenon
(and likewise rhythm entrainment in the temporal domain), these
information-binding principles are more fundamental that the modality of
audition itself, since it is non-auditory, abstract information that we, as
processors, ascribe to the 

Re: [Vo]:Mechanical OU update

[Vibrator !]

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]:Galilean relativity and a tree.

[Vibrator !]

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
relative to one another.

In short, KE is relative, because motion is relative.. but what is that
motion relative to?  The zero-momentum frame; that is, the FoR from which
the net change in momentum in each direction is equal and opposite.

The bottom line is that when you accelerate towards or away from the tree,
you cause an equal opposite counter-acceleration of the tree-plus-planet,
the net mass of which divided by your momentum change gives the
infinitesimal but non-trivial counter acceleration of the tree + planet...
hence an external observer sees that the net system momentum is constant,
and correctly calculates that your motion has virtually all of the kinetic
energy of this particular inertial interaction.

The property of matter enforcing N3 (and thus, N1) is mass constancy - 1 kg
is always 1 kg, regardless of when, or at what speed, it is measured.  More
specifically, it is the time-invariance of inertia, since this is what
we're really dealing with in all the equations of motion and mechanical
energy.

Doesn't necessarily apply to time-asymmetric gravitational interactions tho
(ie. the kiiking principle), wherein momentum can be gained or lost to the
inbound vs outboud gravity * time delta..



On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 7:21 PM H LV  wrote:

> In Galilean relativity if I walk eastward towards a tree with uniform
> velocity this is equivalent to saying the tree is moving westward towards
> me with the same uniform velocity. As a fundamental proposition of modern
> physics this is eminently useful but it is also absurd. It is useful if
> what is deemed important about the motion of bodies is the possibility of
> past or future collisions (In the absence of  such obvious possibilities
> the notion of a force was devised to explain changes in uniform velocity).
> It is absurd because it is detached from what we actually know about the
> world on a personal level. The tree is at rest because it is rooted in the
> Earth and I am moving towards it. I cannot get the tree and the Earth to
> move towards me by simply declaring I am at rest. There has to be a
> property of matter that expresses this non-relative quality of "rootedness"
> which has been ignored by physics since the 1600's.
>
> Harry
>

Re: [Vo]:Mechanical OU update

[Vibrator !]

..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)
>>
>>
>>

[Vo]:Mechanical OU update

[Vibrator !]

 ..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]:Bessler update, and other musings..

[Vibrator !]

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 multiplying gravity,
mass and height together.  Really, all we're doing there is multiplying
force and displacement, per the work / energy equivalence principle (energy
/ work done is equal to F*d, or torque * angle etc.), however to get the
'force' value we have to multiply the mass by gravity's acceleration.  But
the point is, all three of these components - G, M and H - are
time-invariant constants over a closed-loop trajectory, and closed-loop
trajectories through static fields yield zero net energy.  Trying to
generate a GPE asymmetry - to basically lift something when it's light and
drop it when it's heavy, the mythical perpetually-overbalancing wheel - is
the quintessential fools' errand, because the input and output energy
fields share the same, static, reference frame.  It is thus intrinsically
impossible to gain (or lose) mechanical energy in a closed-loop GPE
interaction.

Anyone attempting to engineer an effective GPE asymmetry in spite of these
facts is, unfortunately, suffering from 'pathological science'.


But not so for momentum!

We CAN gain momentum from a closed-loop GPE interaction.  In fact it's made
possible by a mechanism so simple, we all master it as children..

I'm ranting of course about swinging.  No, not that kind; like a park
swing.  Legs-down whist descending increases our angular inertia (per
m*r²), applying a negative inertial torque that decelerates us in order to
conserve angular momentum (I*w), which thus increases our exposure time to
gravity's constant acceleration (or more specifically, constant ambient
rate of change of momentum), and so we soak up more momentum-from-gravity
than we would've, had our MoI been held constant and left to accelerate
passively.  Conversely, legs-up when rising decreases our inertia, applying
a positive inertial torque that speeds us up, shortening the period-length
of 'negative G-time' in which we're shedding momentum back to gravity.

In short, we're using the 'ice skater effect' to speed up or slow down our
exposure times to the gravitating condition, to affect a momentum asymmetry
between rising and falling phases; our per-cycle momentum yield is
precisely proportional to the respective rising vs falling time-period
asymmetry, relative to gravity's constant acceleration.  Where a pendulum
is passively 'breathing' momentum-from-gravity in and out, a swinger is
actively pumping it in and out (damn these double entendres).  The
Estonians have even made a national sport out of it - 'kiiking' - brawn vs
MoI, basically, but look a little closer and there's something here for the
brains, too..

Look up, specifically, at the axis; the 'up' vs 'down' G-time asymmetry is
only possible because of the reactionless nature of inertial torques;  they
apply no counter-torque at the axis!

Of course, since inertial torques are caused by the conservation of angular
momentum - as opposed to an actual change in momentum that conventional
torque applies - no induction of counter-momentum is thus invoked,
obviating a role for counter-torque in the first place.  Nonetheless, the
'ice skater effect' is effectively opening up a momentum-asymmetry - an
effective violation of Newton's 3rd, and thus 1st, laws - by sidestepping
the mass-constancy constraint, and exploiting the variability of mechanical
velocity - and thus 'input' vs 'output' exposure times - relative to
gravity's constancy, via these transiently-reactionless accelerations /
decelerations..

In all other mechanical systems, there are no unilateral accelerations; a
force can only be applied between two masses / inertias, and their mass /
inertia * velocity products are always equal and opposite in sign, for a
net zero change.

But here, we're gaining angular momentum without counter-torquing the
planet!  In fact, the net acceleration applied to the planet must be
linear, because it spends more time falling towards the swinger than it
does falling away..  Yet angular momentum is also being induced to the
planet regardless, by the fact that the swing's angular momentum gain
ultimately dissipates back to earth when it stops, unless it is perfectly
'undone' by reversing the sequence of inertial torques in an
otherwise-lossless system..

This momentum-from-gravity * time mechanism is the only possible solution
to Bessler's wheel - an apparently genuine 'perpetual-motion gravity wheel'
validated by Leibniz and 's Gravesande personally (the former being 'the
energy guy' where Newton was 'the momentum guy', and the latter having
conducted the famous experiment dropping brass balls onto a clay bed,
noting that crater depth = 'work done' = energy, and that it squared with
height and velocity); basically the two leading 

Re: [Vo]:The Higgs field and LENR

[Vibrator !]

LOL at 'the punchline' (just watched the vid; 1:17:20) - so once again, the
'monopole' (the archetypal epitome of an oxymoron) is being invoked, here,
to patch over an infinity in an otherwise-unworkable theory...

...likeiwise, the existence of unicorns would be consistent with me being
the high 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-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 nonsense 10 more times it will never help to
>> explain the world. It's just a "legal" way to generate money for research.
>> I here mention that the breakthrough prize just has been given to a group
>> that has deep connections to the science (physics) self service money
>> laundering system (includes journals, reviewers, politics) for work  about
>> gravity that nobody ever will use as it is even more outraging than the
>> Higgs...
>>
>> All mass in the universe can be given as EM mass. CERN never ever will
>> find or has found a Higgs or an other fantasy particles like quarks.
>>
>> The Higgs masses are simple proton *resonances *and the quarks are the
>> same.
>>
>> A *resonance *is not a particle. The same holds for magnetic monopoles.
>> Magnetic flux travels at light speed and only strange minds can believe
>> such a flux can be generated/stopped out of nothing with an infinitely
>> strong force - when you e.g. use the outdated Einstein GER.
>>
>>
>> For all the "strange ideas" above completely new physics will be needed
>> with almost no relation to current definitions. Thus if you can provide
>> something - e.g. vacuum fluctuations - that explain how EM-flux is
>> generated out of nothing then you will be a hero & I would like It!
>>
>>
>> To say it once more the gravitation constant is given by the weak force
>> in SO(4) (generated by the complete coupled 5D charge rotation). It is
>> "absolutely exact"= as measured and also explains why gravitation is not
>> absolutely constant, because the coupling mass (electron weak force bound
>> orbit) in the 3D,t frame is slightly varying in nuclei with larger Z.
>>
>>
>>
>> J.W.
>> On 13.09.2019 03:53, Axil Axil wrote:
>>
>> Keith Fredericks
>>
>>
>> http://restframe.com/mm/authors/keith-fredericks/
>>
>>
>> has presented his research on what he calls superluminal particles which
>> are magnetic monopoles at ICCS22. I found the theory that could underpins
>> Keith's finding in a cosmology course from MIT.
>>
>>
>> It involves the formation of a topological defect in the Higgs field.
>> This defect forms when a new Higgs field is created and the Higgs field
>> combines with the new Higgs field. This defect in the Higgs field forms a
>> magnetic monopole that is huge and powerful. A particle forms that has a
>> mass of 10^20 protons or about a microgram. This energy level produces a
>> Higgs field defect that meets the dense Higgs field level of 10^18GeV.
>>
>>
>> According to cosmology theory, monopoles from Higgs field cooling
>> appeared about 2 hours after the big bang. We know that this monopoles can
>> form in the present day to support LENR transmutation.
>>
>>
>> First, the particle is a Higgs field condensate and is tachyonic. The
>> Higgs field is a tachyonic field. This means that the monopole is not
>> superluminal but represents a disturbance in the Higgs field.
>>
>>
>> The lecture is informative from the start and is well worth the time to
>> view it in total. It explains how the Higgs field fits into both the
>> standard model and the standard cosmological model. It shows the math, and
>> then it explains the way dissimilar Higgs field interact.
>>
>>
>> For your convenience, I placed the video pointer of the lecture at 52:58
>> to show the Higgs field spacifics.
>>
>>
>> This area of cosmology is well developed and can be accessed for further
>> study by googling "topological defect in the higgs field"
>>
>>
>> Transmutation in LENR is caused by the "higgs abyss" (for further study
>> google). The Higgs mechanism distorts the function of quarks due to their
>> mass redefinition.
>>
>>
>&g

Re: [Vo]:The Higgs field and LENR

[Vibrator !]

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 nonsense 10 more times it will never help to explain
> the world. It's just a "legal" way to generate money for research. I here
> mention that the breakthrough prize just has been given to a group that has
> deep connections to the science (physics) self service money laundering
> system (includes journals, reviewers, politics) for work  about gravity
> that nobody ever will use as it is even more outraging than the Higgs...
>
> All mass in the universe can be given as EM mass. CERN never ever will
> find or has found a Higgs or an other fantasy particles like quarks.
>
> The Higgs masses are simple proton *resonances *and the quarks are the
> same.
>
> A *resonance *is not a particle. The same holds for magnetic monopoles.
> Magnetic flux travels at light speed and only strange minds can believe
> such a flux can be generated/stopped out of nothing with an infinitely
> strong force - when you e.g. use the outdated Einstein GER.
>
>
> For all the "strange ideas" above completely new physics will be needed
> with almost no relation to current definitions. Thus if you can provide
> something - e.g. vacuum fluctuations - that explain how EM-flux is
> generated out of nothing then you will be a hero & I would like It!
>
>
> To say it once more the gravitation constant is given by the weak force in
> SO(4) (generated by the complete coupled 5D charge rotation). It is
> "absolutely exact"= as measured and also explains why gravitation is not
> absolutely constant, because the coupling mass (electron weak force bound
> orbit) in the 3D,t frame is slightly varying in nuclei with larger Z.
>
>
>
> J.W.
> On 13.09.2019 03:53, Axil Axil wrote:
>
> Keith Fredericks
>
>
> http://restframe.com/mm/authors/keith-fredericks/
>
>
> has presented his research on what he calls superluminal particles which
> are magnetic monopoles at ICCS22. I found the theory that could underpins
> Keith's finding in a cosmology course from MIT.
>
>
> It involves the formation of a topological defect in the Higgs field. This
> defect forms when a new Higgs field is created and the Higgs field combines
> with the new Higgs field. This defect in the Higgs field forms a magnetic
> monopole that is huge and powerful. A particle forms that has a mass of
> 10^20 protons or about a microgram. This energy level produces a Higgs
> field defect that meets the dense Higgs field level of 10^18GeV.
>
>
> According to cosmology theory, monopoles from Higgs field cooling appeared
> about 2 hours after the big bang. We know that this monopoles can form in
> the present day to support LENR transmutation.
>
>
> First, the particle is a Higgs field condensate and is tachyonic. The
> Higgs field is a tachyonic field. This means that the monopole is not
> superluminal but represents a disturbance in the Higgs field.
>
>
> The lecture is informative from the start and is well worth the time to
> view it in total. It explains how the Higgs field fits into both the
> standard model and the standard cosmological model. It shows the math, and
> then it explains the way dissimilar Higgs field interact.
>
>
> For your convenience, I placed the video pointer of the lecture at 52:58
> to show the Higgs field spacifics.
>
>
> This area of cosmology is well developed and can be accessed for further
> study by googling "topological defect in the higgs field"
>
>
> Transmutation in LENR is caused by the "higgs abyss" (for further study
> google). The Higgs mechanism distorts the function of quarks due to their
> mass redefinition.
>
>
> In my opinion, Keith's presentation is the most significant presentation
> of this conference and reveals the true nature of the NAE and the science
> that supports it.
>
>
> What is interesting about Keith Fredericks findings is that these
> monopoles form spontaneously from the environment as well as those being
> produced in LENR experiments. Keith Fredericks calls these particles cosmic
> background. He shows them as the agent that produce tracks (strange
> radiation) where matter loss occurs.
>
>
> https://youtu.be/seBwiL9InII?t=3178
>
> --
> Jürg Wyttenbach
> Bifangstr. 22
> 8910 Affoltern am Albis
>
> +41 44 760 14 18
> +41 79 246 36 06
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Magic Roundabout

[Vibrator !]

Mate, i haven't made a spurious OU claim in months.  A good few weeks
anyway. 'Careful' personified, me.  ;)



OK i've had some kip & cofee, let's run thru it one more time:

 • give both axial and orbital MoI's a value of 1 kg-m²

 • apply 1 N-m of torque for 1 second each cycle

 • this raises 1 kg-m²-rad/s of momentum in each direction, at ½ J each, 1
J total

 • rotate the axial axis 90° to perpendicular; the precessional torque is
earthed

 • brake the axial rotor back to stationary, earthing its momentum

 • rotate the axial axis back to parallel with the orbital axis, and repeat
the cycle


This last step, of rotating the axial axis back into parallel with the
orbital axis, must be where the magic's occurring.

To achieve equal MoI's in each axis requires that the 'turntable' is
essentially made from aerogel;  since most of the surface area of such a
disc would be redundant, it might as well be substituted with a carbon
fibre rod, mounted to a pivot at one end with the axial rotor and motor
mounted at the outer end.  Thus the axial rotor constitutes most of the
system mass, for both the axial and orbital MoI's.  If the 'axial rotor' is
considered a 1 kg point mass at 1 meter radius, and the orbital radius is
also 1 meter, then the system has ~1 kg-m² of both axial and orbital
inertia.

So, while an unusual indulgence, this isn't non-physical.

I've knocked up a brief sim of such an impulse being applied, here:

https://i.ibb.co/PQv8SnJ/Axial-vs-Orbital-3.gif

..this seems to confirm the initial predicates; applying a 1 N-m torque for
1 second is going to cause a 1 kg-m²-rad/s change in momentum in each axis
and direction, regardless of the current system speed..

So let's try it when starting with an initial system speed of 2 rad/s:

Relative FoR:

https://i.ibb.co/PNdhfPr/Axial-vs-Orbital-31.gif

Absolute FoR:

https://i.ibb.co/bzkyLsF/Axial-vs-Orbital-32.gif

..eek, that seems to solve it, eh?The T*a is speed-invariant, but once
already at speed it's simply transferring momentum between axes,
decelerating the axial momentum..

..then, rotating the axial axis perpendicular to the orbital axis and
braking it would be earthing momentum of the sign we wanna keep, not
discard..

..and rotating its axis back to parallel, with zero axial speed relative to
the orbital axis, will simply transfer orbital momentum back to axial - so
if there were 3 kg-m²-rad/s of system momentum remaining prior to
realigning the axial axis, there'd be 1.5 kg-m²-rad/s left on each axis
afterwards..


TL;DR - after the first cycle, it ceases earthing counter-momentum and
begins earthing positive momentum instead.  The 'relative vs absolute'
FoR's / momenta don'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 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 supposed to be kg/m² (kg-m²-rad/s is momentum).
>>>
>>> Whatevs.
>>>
>>> The same input workload buys the same amount of momentum for the same
>>> energy each cycle, in spite of rising RPM's, so plotting that flat trace
>>> across RPM's, the rotKE is inevitably going to intersect it after n cycles,
>>> and keep on climbing..
>>>
>>> The no. of cycles to unity appears to be a function of the sum of the
>>> MoI ratio, so for 1:1 = 2 cycs, with a 50% per-cycle efficiency
>>> accumulator, for 2:1 = 3 cycs @ 33%, 3:1 = 4 cycs @ 25% etc.
>>>
>>> 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 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 rigid axis,
>>>> having no effect upon its current balance of momentum..
>>>>
>>>> ..now brake away that counter-momentum in your hands, earthing the lot..
>>>>
>>>> ..you're now stood on the edge of a rotating turntable, holding a
>>>> stationary flywheel..
>>>>
>>>> ..flip it back to p

Re: [Vo]:Magic Roundabout

[Vibrator !]

" 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 supposed to be kg/m² (kg-m²-rad/s is momentum).
>
> Whatevs.
>
> The same input workload buys the same amount of momentum for the same
> energy each cycle, in spite of rising RPM's, so plotting that flat trace
> across RPM's, the rotKE is inevitably going to intersect it after n cycles,
> and keep on climbing..
>
> The no. of cycles to unity appears to be a function of the sum of the MoI
> ratio, so for 1:1 = 2 cycs, with a 50% per-cycle efficiency accumulator,
> for 2:1 = 3 cycs @ 33%, 3:1 = 4 cycs @ 25% etc.
>
> 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 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 rigid axis,
>> having no effect upon its current balance of momentum..
>>
>> ..now brake away that counter-momentum in your hands, earthing the lot..
>>
>> ..you're now stood on the edge of a rotating turntable, holding a
>> stationary flywheel..
>>
>> ..flip it back to parallel and repeat the cycle..
>>
>>
>> Simplifying, assume equal MoI's for both axes (ie. 1 kg-m²-rad/s each).
>>
>> Both the per-cycle input torque * angle and the resulting momentum yield
>> appear to be RPM-invariant; that is, the input energy cost of momentum
>> appears to be constant / invariant to system speed, whereas its rotational
>> KE is obviously squaring up..
>>
>> For example, 10 purchases of 1 kg-m²-rad/s at 1 J each costs a total of
>> 10 J (this includes dissipating half the input energy per cycle). Yet 10
>> kg-m²-rad/s divided by two 1 kg-m² MoI's gives them 5 rad/s each, and so
>> 12.5 J each, 25 J total.
>>
>> Using two equal MoI's, we find a 75% net loss after the first cycle, 50%
>> following the second cycle, 25% at the third.. we hit unity at the fourth
>> cycle, and 125% of unity at the fifth..  and efficiency keep rising by that
>> same 25% per cycle as we accumulate ever-more 'unilateral' momentum, at
>> fixed cost, its KE value squaring with rising velocity..
>>
>>
>> Only thought this up 24 hrs ago but barely slept since..  where am i
>> going wrong?  It's too simple!
>>
>>

Re: [Vo]:Magic Roundabout

[Vibrator !]

..on 2nd thoughts, isn't it a 50% accumulator?  So 2-cycs to unity, 3 to
133%..

And MoI's obviously supposed to be kg/m² (kg-m²-rad/s is momentum).

Whatevs.

The same input workload buys the same amount of momentum for the same
energy each cycle, in spite of rising RPM's, so plotting that flat trace
across RPM's, the rotKE is inevitably going to intersect it after n cycles,
and keep on climbing..

The no. of cycles to unity appears to be a function of the sum of the MoI
ratio, so for 1:1 = 2 cycs, with a 50% per-cycle efficiency accumulator,
for 2:1 = 3 cycs @ 33%, 3:1 = 4 cycs @ 25% etc.

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 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 rigid axis,
> having no effect upon its current balance of momentum..
>
> ..now brake away that counter-momentum in your hands, earthing the lot..
>
> ..you're now stood on the edge of a rotating turntable, holding a
> stationary flywheel..
>
> ..flip it back to parallel and repeat the cycle..
>
>
> Simplifying, assume equal MoI's for both axes (ie. 1 kg-m²-rad/s each).
>
> Both the per-cycle input torque * angle and the resulting momentum yield
> appear to be RPM-invariant; that is, the input energy cost of momentum
> appears to be constant / invariant to system speed, whereas its rotational
> KE is obviously squaring up..
>
> For example, 10 purchases of 1 kg-m²-rad/s at 1 J each costs a total of 10
> J (this includes dissipating half the input energy per cycle). Yet 10
> kg-m²-rad/s divided by two 1 kg-m² MoI's gives them 5 rad/s each, and so
> 12.5 J each, 25 J total.
>
> Using two equal MoI's, we find a 75% net loss after the first cycle, 50%
> following the second cycle, 25% at the third.. we hit unity at the fourth
> cycle, and 125% of unity at the fifth..  and efficiency keep rising by that
> same 25% per cycle as we accumulate ever-more 'unilateral' momentum, at
> fixed cost, its KE value squaring with rising velocity..
>
>
> Only thought this up 24 hrs ago but barely slept since..  where am i going
> wrong?  It's too simple!
>
>

[Vo]:Magic Roundabout

[Vibrator !]

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 rigid axis,
having no effect upon its current balance of momentum..

..now brake away that counter-momentum in your hands, earthing the lot..

..you're now stood on the edge of a rotating turntable, holding a
stationary flywheel..

..flip it back to parallel and repeat the cycle..


Simplifying, assume equal MoI's for both axes (ie. 1 kg-m²-rad/s each).

Both the per-cycle input torque * angle and the resulting momentum yield
appear to be RPM-invariant; that is, the input energy cost of momentum
appears to be constant / invariant to system speed, whereas its rotational
KE is obviously squaring up..

For example, 10 purchases of 1 kg-m²-rad/s at 1 J each costs a total of 10
J (this includes dissipating half the input energy per cycle). Yet 10
kg-m²-rad/s divided by two 1 kg-m² MoI's gives them 5 rad/s each, and so
12.5 J each, 25 J total.

Using two equal MoI's, we find a 75% net loss after the first cycle, 50%
following the second cycle, 25% at the third.. we hit unity at the fourth
cycle, and 125% of unity at the fifth..  and efficiency keep rising by that
same 25% per cycle as we accumulate ever-more 'unilateral' momentum, at
fixed cost, its KE value squaring with rising velocity..


Only thought this up 24 hrs ago but barely slept since..  where am i going
wrong?  It's too simple!

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

[Vibrator !]

Moletrap's great - i've already found out that  momentum ISN'T conserved -
there's actually a time delay between a change in MoI and the resulting
change in velocity!  Did you know that?  I certainly didn't!  So net system
momentum just comes and goes, as a function of time!

Furthermore, measuring it in dimensions of inertia times velocity & units
of kg-m²-rad/s is actually just crass error - the REAL figure should always
be given in units of "radius * angular velocity * radius^2".  Who knew?

This, from a professor of physics!  And we KNOW he is too, since he
mentions "marking papers" - and how else could he POSSIBLY know professors
mark papers if he wasn't one?  Exactly.

Shame, i was learning so much, right up until they banned me..

Trim's a good egg tho..

Already banned from Physorg's forums (to be fair, even legit discoveries
are against their usage policy).

Contacting Shawn or Mike Daly seems another potentially-worthwhile crank
email - no question they'd be able to follow the mechanics, they understand
things like 'work' and KE vs PE, plus they'll instantly be able to
recognise it as a time-variant inertial interaction (basically, their own
invention).  So they're actually probably the best bet for grasping it..
plus they know me... But they don't have a company anymore, and probably
wouldn't wanna touch it with a barge pole after last time..  and who'd
believe them anyway?

I've kept in occasional touch with Alan Smith - he's also in touch with
other ex-spudders - he'd offered to take an interest if i ever found
anything, only now he's down his own rabbit hole with equally tantalising
results (and a lot more invested)..

..and obviously, if real, this kind of pulls the rug out from under
everything else, so..

I really think aiming low, on the 'validation' stakes, is the way to go.  I
can hold my own on Moletrap - and most of their insults are quite on the
mark anyway, it's just the pseudoscience that really grates - but now i've
won 'fuckwit of the week' i can't even post anymore..


Free energy anyone?  Get your free energy here!  It's free! Imagine your
neighbor's envy when you're the most powerful entity in the cosmos!
Infinite free energy, right here, right now, it's a free-for-all bonanza!

"Don't you wanna haggle for it then?"

On Wed, Feb 6, 2019 at 1:48 PM Frank Grimer <88.fr...@gmail.com> 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, Terry Blanton  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 6, 2019 at 7:06 AM Vibrator !  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Sorry to bump my own thread, bad form..
>>>
>>
>> Some suggestions:
>>
>> Look up Frank Grimer.  He hangs out at the Besseler Wheel forum:
>> https://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/  and will be delighted to hear of
>> your discovery.
>>
>> and
>>
>> Contact the manufacturer of your sim software and have his engineers
>> explain why his program gives such a clearly impossible result.
>>
>> Warm Regards.
>>
>> Terry
>>
>> PS You'll get nowhere in the "not the Steorn" forum.  They're devout
>> septics.
>>
>

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

[Vibrator !]

Yeah, no, sorry, me and Frank don't really follow eachother's stuff, much
(hi Frank!)
 - it actually began on the BWF - i'm, uhh, trying to 'elevate' it from
there, however - smashing bunch that they are..

One member - Fletcher - understands work / energy equivalence, multiplying
forces and displacements etc., but he's about the cream of the crop..  He
acknowledges the OU result, but the only conclusion he'll draw for now is
error - last i heard he suspects that the motor is supplying extra energy
somehow.

Contacting the devs would seem one option - if i really suspected error.
However i'm here because i've eliminated any such possibility, as far as
i'm aware - the gain's being calculated both by the sim's own low-level
calculus as well as via the chain of meters being displayed.  So for
instance, MoI is being calculated as the real-time mass * radius squared,
and the rotKE is being calculated as half that MoI * RPM², so the sim is
definitely NOT in error, any more than those formulas could be.

The gain is real, sir.

You assume a priori that it's 'impossible' - that evidence to the contrary
can only be interpreted as evidence of error.

But if there's no error, then our next fall-back position is to assume
we're seeing evidence of an unidentified source.  As opposed to creation ex
nihilo.

That's where i'm at now.  Only, the source appears to be the Higgs field.
Colossal tho it may be, if the vacuum energy density underwriting the
strength of the Higgs interaction should reach a lower local value than its
global average (ie. throughout the cosmos), then we precipitate a 'big rip'
scenario, according to the quantum cosmologists anyway.  But then, maybe
we're SUPPOSED to?  It'd neatly solve the Fermi paradox anyway..

Dude, i'm outa my depth.  Comically so.  But precisely because the calcs
seem solid.  This is way too much responsibility, even if it ain't a
doomsday machine.

Either way, i'm unable to do much more with it.  I can formulate it on a
blackboard, sim it, and could probably knock up an Arduino controller and
stepper-motor rig.  A YT video of such a build, with a couple of £5
multimeters showing the energy drawn is too low, seems a frivolous waste of
time and opportunity - if no one accepts the standard KE and F*d terms, a
DIY effigy is obviously on a hiding to nowhere..

So showing it in its entirety - guts out, no secrets, no innovations - to
fellow 'alternative energy' enthusiasts (ie. fellow peanut gallery inmates)
seems the most practical way forwards.  It only needs one or two
individuals to try the calcs themselves, verify the anomaly, and let word
of mouth do the rest.

John, above, seems to have at least put pen to paper (no pressure mate!) -
maybe he'll verify it, or just throw his hands up.. It's a start.  I'm also
working thru a short list of people i know are able to solve basic
mechanical interactions, but have to give 'em time - no one's gonna commit
to such heresy on a whim.

The sim - and the standard equations of motion i've used in those calcs -
are not amenable to error, so far as i'm aware.  It's watertight and
hermetically sealed.  No energy or momentum can get in or out without being
explicitly measured.  The ONLY form of energy the motor is able to provide
is torque * angle.

I AM very much amenable 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 thread, bad form..
>>
>
> Some suggestions:
>
> Look up Frank Grimer.  He hangs out at the Besseler Wheel forum:
> https://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/  and will be delighted to hear of
> your discovery.
>
> and
>
> Contact the manufacturer of your sim software and have his engineers
> explain why his program gives such a clearly impossible result.
>
> Warm Regards.
>
> Terry
>
> PS You'll get nowhere in the "not the Steorn" forum.  They're devout
> septics.
>

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

[Vibrator !]

Sorry to bump my own thread, bad form.. only i'm really kind of itching for
any progress here (at wits end!)..

It's a big ask, i know - the sims may look a bit mysterious but it's really
extremely simple:

 - The system energy doubles.  The most obvious reason would seem to be
work done by the motors.  The motors switch on, and speed & KE doubles.
Pretty straightforwards cause and effect, right?

 - Work done by the motors is being measured as torque times angle.   In
all other instances, this metric produces a clear 'line integral', and the
area under that curve is the 'work done' in Joules.  So here, we expect to
see a clear activity of that line integral showing us that 8 J of work
being performed.


Yet all we see is a flat trace.  Not so much as a blip.

This is why i'm trying to get your attentions.

Again, there is no error in terms of the construction of the torque * angle
meter - it works as expected in all other circumstances.  It is, without
any doubt, measuring torque on the y-axis, and angle on the x.

So how can it be a flat trace in this particular interaction?

There IS a consistent explanation, however it is basically that the result
is correct - and that we're looking at an incredibly easy OU outcome.

This is likely to remain a measurement anomaly unless someone else sits up
and takes notice.  Without anyone else's verification, it's just another
free-energy whacko with an impossible claim / stupid mistake.

For clarity, i am unable to detect input energy in terms of either motor
torque * angle, or power * time - both are solid, reliable metrics, which
produce accurate & consistent integrals under any other conditions.

Here, both metrics are saying "free mechanical energy".

Anyone able to understand these terms should be sitting 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 torque vs
> angle.  This integral has also been checked against torque * angular vel *
> time - not shown in the sims to reduce clutter, but both metric produce an
> identical flat trace..
>
> ...in other words, the 'torque' component in both metrics is registering
> as 'zero'.
>
> Under all other circumstances, motor torque * angle produces a perfect
> integral, from which any interaction can be solved to unity.
>
> So, why in this case is it calculating no net torque?
>
> The only possibility is that there is another, identical torque, of equal
> sign and magnitude...
>
> ..and THERE IS!  It's an 'inertial torque', caused by conservation of
> angular momentum, in response to the halving of the orbital MoI!
> Activating the motors causes the orbital MoI to converge to the net
> orbiting mass focused at the radius of the orbiting motor axes.  Thus
> orbital MoI suddenly flips from a value of 16 kg-m², down to just 8 kg-m².
> Since angular momentum is MoI * RPM, the latter instantly doubles to
> conserve their product.
>
> Net AM never wavers throughout - doesn't so much as blip when the MoI
> changes.  All 16 kg-m²-rad/s remains conserved, as it must be.  And that
> amount of momentum, manifested in 8 kg-m² of MoI, can only exist at
> precisely 2 rad/s, whereupon it has a rotKE=½Iw² value of precisely 16 J -
> and can have no more or less.
>
> So we end up with precisely the right amount of KE, for the given
> conserved momentum, and its change in MoI.  No more or less KE can exist at
> that particular momentum distribution.  The energy gain was thus caused by
> CoAM!
>
> Thus if the motors had somehow commuted some other form of energy that
> somehow slipped past the torque & angle plot... where is it?   Surely it
> would have to be surplus to the 16 J of the conserved 16 kg-m²-rad/s
> momentum at 8 kg-m² * 2 rad/s?
>
> Yet there is only just ENOUGH energy - precisely the right amount - for
> that momentum configuration...
>
> Mate, i bat down OU claims in my sleep.  If i'm bringing this here, to
> share with others, it's because i've been unable to crack it..  I'm
> fallible (very, very fallible), so the de facto conclusion has to remain
> error until someone else validates.. at that point it's TWO crazy folks,
> rather than just muggins 'ere.  Still only two crazy folks tho...
>
> ..cracking OU is only half the battle... communicating the news to anyone
> else capable of following it is the tricky part..  most people so able
> wouldn't waste a synapse trying (and quite rightly so), hence 'catch 22'..
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 5, 2019 at 6:32 AM John Shop  wrote:
>
>> Sorry - it seems I got the polarity of the reaction torque wrong.  The
>> reaction torque fr

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

[Vibrator !]

Hi John, and thank you so much for taking an interest!

The input energy to the motors is being logged in terms of torque vs
angle.  This integral has also been checked against torque * angular vel *
time - not shown in the sims to reduce clutter, but both metric produce an
identical flat trace..

...in other words, the 'torque' component in both metrics is registering as
'zero'.

Under all other circumstances, motor torque * angle produces a perfect
integral, from which any interaction can be solved to unity.

So, why in this case is it calculating no net torque?

The only possibility is that there is another, identical torque, of equal
sign and magnitude...

..and THERE IS!  It's an 'inertial torque', caused by conservation of
angular momentum, in response to the halving of the orbital MoI!
Activating the motors causes the orbital MoI to converge to the net
orbiting mass focused at the radius of the orbiting motor axes.  Thus
orbital MoI suddenly flips from a value of 16 kg-m², down to just 8 kg-m².
Since angular momentum is MoI * RPM, the latter instantly doubles to
conserve their product.

Net AM never wavers throughout - doesn't so much as blip when the MoI
changes.  All 16 kg-m²-rad/s remains conserved, as it must be.  And that
amount of momentum, manifested in 8 kg-m² of MoI, can only exist at
precisely 2 rad/s, whereupon it has a rotKE=½Iw² value of precisely 16 J -
and can have no more or less.

So we end up with precisely the right amount of KE, for the given conserved
momentum, and its change in MoI.  No more or less KE can exist at that
particular momentum distribution.  The energy gain was thus caused by CoAM!

Thus if the motors had somehow commuted some other form of energy that
somehow slipped past the torque & angle plot... where is it?   Surely it
would have to be surplus to the 16 J of the conserved 16 kg-m²-rad/s
momentum at 8 kg-m² * 2 rad/s?

Yet there is only just ENOUGH energy - precisely the right amount - for
that momentum configuration...

Mate, i bat down OU claims in my sleep.  If i'm bringing this here, to
share with others, it's because i've been unable to crack it..  I'm
fallible (very, very fallible), so the de facto conclusion has to remain
error until someone else validates.. at that point it's TWO crazy folks,
rather than just muggins 'ere.  Still only two crazy folks tho...

..cracking OU is only half the battle... communicating the news to anyone
else capable of following it is the tricky part..  most people so able
wouldn't waste a synapse trying (and quite rightly so), hence 'catch 22'..





On Tue, Feb 5, 2019 at 6:32 AM John Shop  wrote:

> 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.
> Howev

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

[Vibrator !]

ck!), here's what happens
when we try to harness the KE gain by applying an external stator:

https://i.ibb.co/NL83kc7/Momentum-Dive.gif

Here, the net system's rotation drives the lower cogwheel / sprocket, which
is affixed to the background (world).  That external 'stator wheel' then
drives an identical one at the central axis, which in turn drives the two
orbiting rotors.  Think chains & sprockets, or drive belts / pulleys,
whatever.

We see that the net system momentum is no longer conserved - the instant
that transmission system's engaged, applying the orbiting torques, the net
system momentum crashes, dumping half of it to earth, via that lower stator
wheel.

Comparing that last run back to the gain outcomes, we see that in contrast,
their KE gain is contingent upon the net system momentum remaining
isolated, and all torques and counter-torques being contained.

What you're thus seeing is a 'divergent frame of reference' - an effective
violation of Newton's 3rd law, wrought by manipulating the system's
effective mass constancy (again, see the "MoI exploit" explanation).

If energy is ultimately conserved, then almost by definition it's being
provided by the Higgs, and thus this could be the absolute antitheses of a
'free lunch', in really, really bad way..

Flying blind here guys, really depending on piquing the inner classicist in
all y'all.. a few mins, Notepad, Calculator, Google... I'm certain you
will not be wasting your time, but you're the first folks to see it with
any chance of grasping it.  I'm a complete loner, trying to reach out for
some kind of initial peer review.   It's not a machine design, just a
series of simple, elementary measurements.  It is the validity of these
measurements that require your attention (again, not prospective machine
designs!)..

If those measurements are invalid, then the matter is trifling, i'm (still)
an idiot, no harm done and your services to the cause are well-rendered and
just.

If OTOH they're correct, then this is not a frivolous matter and so i'm
trying to do the responsible thing and elevate accordingly.   So please,
gents - science hats on, and "check it again!"..

Any questions / clarifications, fire away.


NB:  again, the 'motors' aren't 'electrical' - they're just torque * angle,
as metered, the same standard metric throughout, and which resolves to
unity in the above example using an external stator (as in all other
uses).  Likewise, the 'linear actuators' are merely the application of
linear force and displacement, as metered.  Thus neither has any means of
applying any more energy than their classical 'work done' as a function of
the force and displacement being plotted.   Moreover, the system always has
precisely the correct rotational KE for its momentum's given distribution
of MoI and RPM, so there is no accounting gap that might signal the
presence of a further input energy source.  This is simply a measurement of
elementary classical forces interacting, not a machine design - a
simulation, not mere animation, and furthermore the gain's being calculated
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 the angular momentum and angular energy will be
> conserved.  In  a simple case of a rotating object, if the MoI is changed
> by a factor of two, then the object spin will speed up or down by that
> factor.  And, as a consequence the angular energy will remain the same
> since it is proportional to the square of the angular speed but inversely
> proportional to the MoI.
>
>
>
> I can not comment upon your special system because for some reason I did
> not get additional information about your setup.  You can be assured that
> the conservation laws are intact.
>
>
>
> Dave
>
>
>
> Sent from Mail <https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for
> Windows 10
>
>
>
> *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, wi

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

[Vibrator !]

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

[Vibrator !]

Hi John

No, i don't have physical device, or even a physical experiment - not a
great start, one would quite reasonably presume!  So, what do i have, and
why am i so excited about it?

It's just a poxy simulation.  Nothing more.  Just an interaction between
some masses - some forces are applied, some accelerations happen, PE
converts to KE, and also into more PE.

The KE is equal to the GPE value as a function of time spent gravitating (1
second).

It is unequal to the height gravitated across - substantially less than its
GMH value.

However the PE component, output by the interaction, is equal to twice the
KE.

So, from an initial GMH value of 37 J, we get a net output of 24 J in KE...
but then we ALSO get another 48 J in PE!

So 37 J of GPE has spontaneously transformed, in a single second, into 72 J
of mechanical energy - 24 J KE plus 48 J PE!

When the weight is thus re-lifted, repaying that 37 J GMH, we're left with
35 J excess energy that has been loaded into a spring.

This extra mechanical energy was sourced from an effective N3 violation,
and harnessing it (loading it into the spring) has caused a 1.4 meter drop
in the zero-momentum frame between Earth and the weight.

Hence, buy a free energy machine, get a free warp drive, and then go rant
about it on teh interwebz.  I mean, seek professional help, one way or the
other..

I assure you there can be no room for doubt or alternative interpretation
as to how and why this excess work has been performed - it is a genuine
'free' negative work integral, a product of standard force and
displacement, albeit from an N3-defying acceleration.

All component variables and parameters of each term are displayed
independently - anything that CAN be broken down into constituent terms,
has been - and so can be easily cross-referenced with one another for
internal continuity, as well as checked by manual calcs for physical
consistency.

And so this is why i'm so certain, on the back of such apparently dubious
evidence.

A sim can sometimes throw up anomolous gains from rounding errors, or
collision errors, or just bad or incorrect use of formulas.  But here,
there are no collisions, rounding errors are within micro ranges (four or
five orders below gains and entirely negligible), and like i say, all
formulas are cross-checked internally and manually.

I've focused upon 'exploding the view' of the interaction itself, to make
the gain principle as clear to follow in terms of cause and effect, as
possible, rather than further complicating things by designing it into a
'PMM' - which at this stage would probably only hinder attempts at
independent validation; and besides would seem a rather trite and
irresponsible priority for such an important discovery - the experts are
going to be able to do far more with this than i can, provided they can
actually follow the gain principle in the first place.

So it's 'just' sims.. but yet the single most compelling evidence for OU of
any kind that i have ever seen.

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 you have done it, call me
> captain obvious.
>
> Then it is a question of if you are honest, personally I would be willing
> to consider that is possible as I believe that CoE and CoM have been
> violated in the past by other devices.
>
> But really, you need to say that yes, the device powers itself if you want
> to be beyond any possibility you are wrong.
> If it does, then assuming you are acting in good faith, you need someone
> else to replicate it.
> It might be a good idea to provide a video with as much transparency as
> possible to ensure people are willing to construct replicate your device.
>
> If you DON'T have a device that can run continuously, then you really need
> to disclose all the details so people can understand the principle, and
> help you work out how to build out.
>
> So really, you either should have a device that can power itself...  In
> which case you should video it and help someone replicate it, have that
> person sign an NDA if you wish.
>
> Or you should be seeking help designing and building a device that can
> power itself (and ideally a load).
> Anything else is vanity, a waste of time etc...
>
> So, which is it, do you want help to replicate something you have already
> done?  Or to build something that you believe you have proven but not yet
> demonstrated?
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 6, 2018 at 12:43 AM, Vibrator !  wrote:
>
>> Short answer - i'm explicitly claiming an effective CoE violation.  Your
>> incredulity is entirely appropriate.  It sounds like complete heresy.  I'm
>> saying it's meticulously measured and a direct conseque

Re: [Vo]:Successful Mechanical OU

[Vibrator !]

2 does not mean we're obtaining twice as much angular
momentum as another rotor with half the MoI, or indeed a
horizontally-sliding mass.  The 'objective' or absolute rate of change of
momentum for a gravitating system remains 9.81 p/s, irrespective of the
relative units of the measurement dimensions; the
space/mass/acceleration/time relation is constant, or else we'd likewise be
varying the 9.81 p/s rate along with the amount of non-gravitating mass in
the linear horizontal case.

This is true.  It takes much more energy to accelerate a car from 100mph to
> 110mph than it did to accelerate it from 0 to 10mph.  One reason is obvious
> - you would have to apply a constant accelerating force (acting against the
> earth) over a much greater distance for the period when the car's average
> velocity is 105mph than you had to when its average velocity was only
> 5mph.  And energy = force times distance.
>

..thus a rip-off velocity tax; the detail they're catching you on is the
damned velocity difference between your car and the road it's pushing
against. If you could only have your own little piece of road that your car
simply drags along beneath it, then you could keep raising momentum against
it without that velocity and thus distance increasing!  IOW, CoE is
enforced 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 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 somethin

Re: [Vo]:Successful Mechanical OU

[Vibrator !]

Short answer - i'm explicitly claiming an effective CoE violation.  Your
incredulity is entirely appropriate.  It sounds like complete heresy.  I'm
saying it's meticulously measured and a direct consequence of CoM and CoE
holding precisely as they're supposed to, beyond any possibility of error.
  I am absolutely susceptible TO error, but because of that i've done my
due diligence, to eliminate my own stupidity as a factor.

Dancing around this issue point-by-point when i haven't presented you with
evidence of the claim is probably redundant..  like i say if i can't enlist
any help 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 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
> progressiv

Re: [Vo]:Successful Mechanical OU

[Vibrator !]

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.  Still, that's no reason to
> bury it like Bessler did.  And we all benefit from the results, so long as
> they're applied responsibly.  If i ain't gotta spend income on fuel or
> energy, and maybe also if the housing bubble bursts, 8kpa could be plenty.
> Everyone else's negative equity will have to be written off, reset time for
> the global economy, and we'll all be able to retire in quaint log cabins
> and live comfortably off-grid.  And there'll be bluebirds, swooping across
> saphire skies, as people of all nations and creeds join ha-  eek dribbling
> again.  But basically with any luck we hopefully won't destroy ourselves,
> tough wood.
>
> Like i say, i've tried to contact various universities, gonna give Dresden
> another day or so to respond - IF one of 'em picks it up then it won't hurt
> to give academia a bit of a head-start..  otherwise you'll be looking at it
> by the w/e.
>
> If anyone has any better ideas in the meantime, do pipe up..
>
> On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 9:23 PM, Chris Zell  wrote:
>
>> If this thing is real, give up trying to get fame or fortune out of it.
>>
>>
>>
>> Just mail copies of how to build it to various people who are likely to
>> put it together – before you get mysteriously stopped somehow.
>>
>> Destroying the elite is a worthy goal of a lifetime.
>>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Successful Mechanical OU

[Vibrator !]

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 as
they're applied responsibly.  If i ain't gotta spend income on fuel or
energy, and maybe also if the housing bubble bursts, 8kpa could be plenty.
Everyone else's negative equity will have to be written off, reset time for
the global economy, and we'll all be able to retire in quaint log cabins
and live comfortably off-grid.  And there'll be bluebirds, swooping across
saphire skies, as people of all nations and creeds join ha-  eek dribbling
again.  But basically with any luck we hopefully won't destroy ourselves,
tough wood.

Like i say, i've tried to contact various universities, gonna give Dresden
another day or so to respond - IF one of 'em picks it up then it won't hurt
to give academia a bit of a head-start..  otherwise you'll be looking at it
by the w/e.

If anyone has any better ideas in the meantime, do pipe up..

On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 9:23 PM, Chris Zell  wrote:

> If this thing is real, give up trying to get fame or fortune out of it.
>
>
>
> Just mail copies of how to build it to various people who are likely to
> put it together – before you get mysteriously stopped somehow.
>
> Destroying the elite is a worthy goal of a lifetime.
>

Re: [Vo]:Successful Mechanical OU

[Vibrator !]

: 44937758936840900 m/s / 149896229 J =
299792458...

Recognise that number?  Yep that's right - using reactionless momentum to
get to lightspeed is as many times over-unity as there are meters per
second in C.

So C is 299792458 m/s, and accelerating 1 kg to that speed sans N3 is
299792458x OU.

Obviously i'm not suggesting running Bessler wheels at those speeds... but
i am positively dribbling at the 1.4 meter shift in the zero-momentum frame
on each cycle of the gain interaction i'm looking at..

With both effects harnessed, not only can we reach 299792458 m/s , but we
can do so using 299792458 times less energy than would normally be
required.  Not that we haven't got infinite energy to play 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 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

[Vibrator !]

LOL the quote you're referring to is expressly a calculation of the energy
efficiency of a hypothetical fully-asymmetric distribution of momentum, ie.
an effective N3 symmetry break, in the context of Bessler's 'toys page'.
The purpose is to illustrate the decoupling of input to output energies as
they evolve as a function of accumulating this notionally 'reactionless
momentum'.  Like i say, this EXAMPLE sequence rises in 25% steps, reaching
unity at 4, and 125% OU at five.  Thus, items 'A' and 'B' on the toys page
are consistent with an allusion to this form of symmetry break.. if not its
means.


Had you actually read what i'm saying more carefully, you'd note that i'm
actually claiming a much simpler process for achieving the same end,
WITHOUT having to perform 5 discrete reactionless accelerations to reach
125% of unity.  Instead, i'm claiming 190% in a single interaction, in a
single second.  So, even more worserer, bashically...


I absolutely encourage you to keep having fun working out why it's not
possible, and just how confounding any exception would be... but do keep in
mind that i'm going to show you something that shatters such certainties..

On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 5:25 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 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

[Vibrator !]

No EM energy asymmetry alone can even speak to the issue of CoM - apples to
oranges.  CoM is not energy-dependent - it doesn't matter how much energy
we throw at it, nor its provenance.

The time-dependent variable you propose here is just a causality violation
- photons by definition propagate at C, ie. either the fields are
interacting, and hence powering on the second electro-magnet presents as a
load upon the first one's energy supply via Lenz's law and thus complying
with Newton's 3rd, or else there is never any time for a force to be in
effect between them, and so no mechanical acceleration.  Likewise, if a
magnetic sample is being propelled by an applied field, then either it is
accelerating and so applying back-EMF, or else we're invoking an
unsupported N3 violation again.

You CAN leverage time-dependent mechanical energy asymmetries via the
processes i've described, however.


On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 5:30 PM, 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.
>
> 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.
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 5, 2018 at 3:37 AM, 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 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 phys

Re: [Vo]:Successful Mechanical OU

[Vibrator !]

pon the
equitable distribution of that same conserved quantity..   where does the
velocity and thus momentum that could constitute mechanical heat come
from?  How could we have accelerated the air and molecules around the
system, if not by transferring momentum and thus velocity to them?  Which
would mean we'd have to have LESS than 0.5 m/s of velocity and thus less
than 0.5 kg-m/s of momentum and so less than 125 mJ on each 1 kg mass!

There can be no paradoxes..

In short, elastic collisions conserve net energy, but not net momentum -
try calculating the same interactions fully elastically and you'll
necessarily be invoking a rise in momentum.

Conversely, inelastic ones conserve net momentum, but not energy.  This
loss, by the very nature of its constituent terms and conserved quantities,
is non-dissipative.  Only its non-reversibility with respect to time
prevents easy access to energy gains.  This is entropy, albeit acting on a
level beyond strict 'thermodynamics'.

Like i've always said, the explicit instructions on how thwart CoE and CoM
are implicit within their terms of enforcement.  Read between the lines,
they tell you precisely what not to do if you don't want to get a unity
result.


Without this kung fu, i would never have been so stupid as to take a second
look at Bessler's claim, let alone tackle it with confidence.  But with it,
the evidence of Leibniz et al meant that i couldn't fail.  Success was
guaranteed.  There had to be an unnoticed symmetry break riding through the
middle of classical mechanics, an elephant in the custard, that with a
little determination could be tracked and cornered...   and now i've bagged
it.

Not just wounded it.  Not "close, but i'm running out of hamsters".  There
was a fully-grown African bull elephant perfectly concealed in the custard
bowl, and i've totally harnessed it, by "accelerating without
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 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

Re: [Vo]:Successful Mechanical OU

[Vibrator !]

@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 yet.

Last night i went further and sent a copy of the proofs to Martin Tajmar at
Dresden, so .   No response expected or received, yet - but you gotta give
the guy a chance to see and follow it, assuming it ever got past the
crank-email filter in the first place..  You can't expect anyone, least of
all a renowned scientist, to dive in to such a heresy overnight.

But if i haven't had a bite by the weekend, i'll post up everything i have
for all to see... and so passing responsibility for its safe deployment to
whomever wants to take it on.

I fully expect this to go disastrously.  Most folks will have no idea what
they're seeing, and most who start trying to build will be 'cargo cult
engineering', with no conception of how the gain actually arises or what
their design will need to do to successfully manifest and harness it.
They'll just start knocking up something that looks like it does the same
kind of thing, as far as they can tell, anyway.

Anyone actually tackling it with any intelligence and planning is almost
certainly going to aim for the lowest-hanging fruit of an apparent 'gravity
wheel', and hence applying net momentum to Earth each cycle.   I can tell
myself that makes them the see-you-next-tuesday, but hey, giving people
guns = giving stupid people guns.  Hardly the exoneration i'd like.

But it's that, or risk burying it the same way Bessler did...

On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 4:34 PM, Chris Zell  wrote:

> So give us good pictures already. Enough with the verbiage.
>
>
>
> I increasingly believe in the negative power of stigmergy rather than
> conspiracy.  People just blindly follow each other like termites and build
> ideas as truth.   “Everybody knows” that centrifugal force is just a
> pseudo- force, right?  No reason to examine it……
>
>
>
> While Eric Laithwaite was criticized widely, I was impressed that a heavy
> rotor could be lifted and swung around with little effort, pseudo-force or
> not.
>

Re: [Vo]:Successful Mechanical OU

[Vibrator !]

you need a time
rate-of-change asymmetry, if there's to be any asymmetry at all.  So you're
looking to play an energy quantity that is in some way time-variant,
against one that is not.

This is also the solution to Steorn's passive magnetic 'Orbo' interaction
(as embodied by the Kinetron device) - an asymmetric rate of change of
increasing vs decreasing induced magnetisation, in relation to asymmetric
mechanical accelerations between inbound and outbound halves of the PE-KE
cycle.  Ditto for their electro-mechanical rigs - duty cycle and resulting
dissipative losses are a per-cycle time-dependent function of velocity,
whereas magnetic potential energy is usually not (Sv effects
notwithstanding).

Like Sean McCarthy said at the time, these systems are the ultimate
validation of Noether's theorem, not an exception or workaround.  Hence
there is no need for any contradiction with the standard applications of
CoM and CoE.  No further magic required.  OU depends upon CoM and CoE doing
exactly what 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/deceleration.
>
> I wonder if that fits your description.
>
> Also sometimes this seems to include a influence or energy field exiting
> the mass.
>
> Is this maybe the case?
>
> On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 5:03 AM, Vibrator !  wrote:
>
>> 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 centur

Re: [Vo]:Successful Mechanical OU

[Vibrator !]

re-Rosetta stone, they were believed to be abstract and metaphorical - and
so he was trying to do the same thing as Carl Sagan with the Pioneer
plaques - inscribing his IP claim in a vocabulary beyond language, that
only fellow travelers would understand..

So anyway, TL;DR  - i simply followed both trails of breadcrumbs, coming at
the problem from each end to finally meet somewhere in the middle,
resolving the available physics with the available evidence, and realised
some years ago i was following a yellow brick road to an inexorable
conclusion, whilst almost everyone else was hacking at the thickets with a
blunt toothbrush.  I eliminated the dead ends, and carefully mapped out
whatever was left.

I wouldn't be claiming success if it wasn't real.  I wouldn't condemn
myself, or the Bessler 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 to  Vibrator !'s message of Sun, 3 Jun 2018 18:03:12 +0100:
> Hi,
>
> If had to guess, I'd say a major in physics, and a minor in sociology. Is
> this
> for a sociology paper to see how gullible we are?
>
> [snip]
> Regards,
>
>
> Robin van Spaandonk
>
> local asymmetry = temporary success
>
>

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 impres

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

[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 le

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

[Vibrator !]

@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 force, mass and
motion, with nothing exotic or in any way controversial or edgy involved.

Remember, back in the 1700's there were no roller bearings available to
Bessler - his wheels were incredibly noisy and lossy, with the entire wheel
and axle turning as one piece, on open, steel trunnion bearings secured
with leather straps.  Back then, "friction" referred collectively to any
and all forces retarding motion, not just what we would today categorise as
entropic losses.  'Engineering precision' basically amounted to anything
that didn't tear itself apart immediately.  You had fairly intricate
clockwork mechanisms - Bessler himself dabbled as a clock/watch builder -
and with reference to his exploit, mentioned that flywheels were "not to be
sneered at", however fine measurements (by modern standards) were beyond
his means - and besides, there's nothing delicate or subtle about the
exploit - it's a real keep-yer-fingers-clear brute, not some fragile
balancing act outputting precarious millijoules of 'anomalous' energy.
Again, 37 J becomes 72 J in just one second, with 34 J free and clear..
bite-yer-arm off stuff, this.

On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 2:34 PM, Chris Zell  wrote:

> I have wondered if the Aspden Effect could be a free energy effect.
>  There was an obscure Polish physics group that seemed to replicate it or
> something very much like it.
>
> A gyroscope or rotating mass can have a memory effect, according to this.
> You brake it and re-spin it up to the original rpms and find that it takes
> far less energy to do so when compared with that which you used to get it
> to that rpm level initially.  Makes you wonder if one could simply
> accelerate and deaccelerate while gathering net energy.
>
> I also wonder about the Morgan/Wallace experiments in that it was reported
> that a lead rotor (20K + rpm) produced a field effect causing a similar
> rotor 1/16" away to rotate..in the opposite direction!  If so, as
> opposite, is that sympathetic movement 'free energy'?
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Successful Mechanical OU

[Vibrator !]

 you ever read such a crock?  - but
then i go look at the results again and... damn..  it just is what it is..
and all the more nuts for it.  There's a default time/distance/momentum
symmetry inherent to any mechanical interaction against any force, that, as
it turns out, is not truly fundamental, but rather an incidental
consequence of mass constancy, and which is thus broken by an effective N3
violation, in turn causing an effective N1 violation.  Incidentally,
gravity already violates N2 per Galileo's principle (it's a uniform
acceleration decoupled from the amount of mass, per the usual F=mA), so all
three laws of motion are somewhat conditional on further assumptions.. this
is just the way the universe is built.  It works.  I'm looking at it right
now.  Massive, indisputable gains in mechanical energy, 14 orders above
noise and all perfectly accounted for... by a 1.4 meter drop in the
center-of-momentum reference frame between the weight and Earth.

The simulator (WM2D) ultimately assumes that coordinate space itself is
'stationary', and since the excess momentum is sunk to this, it can't be
measured at the moment.  So the system has to be simmed in relation to a
mobile point-source for the applied force - such as a horizontally-floating
centrifuge, which the sim can model.  It's been one week since achieving
certainty, so after 300 years, a little bit longer won't hurt.. 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 energy of the Earth going around the Sun.
> Every movement on the surface of the planet imparts angular momentum to the
> planet, most of which probably cancels out. The Earth is also constantly
> losing
> angular momentum to the Moon (rotational about it's axis). It hardly makes
> any
> difference. You don't see people worried about tapping tidal energy do
> you? I
> seriously doubt your device would have a noticeable impact in your
> lifetime, or
> that of anyone else now alive, even if everyone used it the "wrong" way.
> If,
> over many lifetimes, the impact became noticeable, I'm sure by then we
> will have
> found alternatives anyway.
>
>
> >I could make a video right now that'd go viral overnight - at least within
> >our crank circles - and every back-yard inventor from here to Calcutta
> will
> >promptly go start generating "energy from gravity" (in their mistaken
> >belief anyway), whilst inadvertently applying equal opposing
> >counter-momenta to Earth on every cycle.
> >
> >I'd give us maybe a few weeks - couple of months tops - before the full-on
> >cannibal holocaust and ELE, but the TL;DR is that any unprecedented
> changes
> >to the planet's resting momentum state will cause cataclysmic
> >meteorological, marine and geological upheaval - much of the worlds'
> >densest conurbations are concentrated around low-lying coastal areas, and
> >any small variation in the lunar tidal lock will unleash the hounds of
> >hell..  any minor perturbation will precipitate all manner of tidal
> surges,
> >mega-quakes and volcanism, any minor effective radial motion of the solid
> >inner core relative to the mushy outer layers will send pressure waves
> >upwards, aligned along the axis of acceleration, there'll be oceans
> >sloshing here and there, crazy high-pressure atmospheric systems, the
> >Earth's thermal dynamo will break homeostasis with the lunar cycle... we
> >could destabilise the Moon's orbit, or our solar orbit, or both, and this
> >is just considering the effects from stray linear momenta - stray angular
> >momenta are another risk (and could be caused by simply lying the system
> >horizontally with respect to gravity, perhaps in the mistaken belief this
> >will prevent grounding stray momentum; it won't, instead converting it
> >directly to axial angular momentum and so interfering with day-length and
> >axial tilt and hence the seasonal equilibria etc.), etc.
> >
> >Still, i guess i could rake in a few YouTube clicks in whatever short time
> >we had left...
> >
> >It has to be done safely, or not at all..   a great rush to off-grid
> utopia
> >and mass water desalination and it'll be a short-lived victory..  we're
> >simply not used to the prospect of such a fast-acting form of pollution.
> >It's usually something we consider our grand kids will mostly have to deal
> >with, on the scale of centuries, or at least decades.
> >
> >We could be looking at a key variable in the Drake equation, and Fermi
> >paradox...  every step in the gain pr

Re: [Vo]:Successful Mechanical OU

[Vibrator !]

I could make a video right now that'd go viral overnight - at least within
our crank circles - and every back-yard inventor from here to Calcutta will
promptly go start generating "energy from gravity" (in their mistaken
belief anyway), whilst inadvertently applying equal opposing
counter-momenta to Earth on every cycle.

I'd give us maybe a few weeks - couple of months tops - before the full-on
cannibal holocaust and ELE, but the TL;DR is that any unprecedented changes
to the planet's resting momentum state will cause cataclysmic
meteorological, marine and geological upheaval - much of the worlds'
densest conurbations are concentrated around low-lying coastal areas, and
any small variation in the lunar tidal lock will unleash the hounds of
hell..  any minor perturbation will precipitate all manner of tidal surges,
mega-quakes and volcanism, any minor effective radial motion of the solid
inner core relative to the mushy outer layers will send pressure waves
upwards, aligned along the axis of acceleration, there'll be oceans
sloshing here and there, crazy high-pressure atmospheric systems, the
Earth's thermal dynamo will break homeostasis with the lunar cycle... we
could destabilise the Moon's orbit, or our solar orbit, or both, and this
is just considering the effects from stray linear momenta - stray angular
momenta are another risk (and could be caused by simply lying the system
horizontally with respect to gravity, perhaps in the mistaken belief this
will prevent grounding stray momentum; it won't, instead converting it
directly to axial angular momentum and so interfering with day-length and
axial tilt and hence the seasonal equilibria etc.), etc.

Still, i guess i could rake in a few YouTube clicks in whatever short time
we had left...

It has to be done safely, or not at all..   a great rush to off-grid utopia
and mass water desalination and it'll be a short-lived victory..  we're
simply not used to the prospect of such a fast-acting form of pollution.
It's usually something we consider our grand kids will mostly have to deal
with, on the scale of centuries, or at least decades.

We could be looking at a key variable in the Drake equation, and Fermi
paradox...  every step in the gain principle is entirely dependent upon CoM
and CoE holding precisely as they're supposed to - it works because of
them, not in spite of them.  Hence any assumption there's anything 'free'
or inconsequential about it is wholly inconsistent with the current
results..  again, you cannot have mechanical OU without an effective break
in momentum symmetry.  The resulting net rise can be mutually-cancelled by
an identical counterposed momentum, but if this is not done then the excess
starts accumulating, and one way or another, things start speeding up or
slowing down...  basically, accelerating.

So yeah.. all good fun, no question..  but this is big boys' toys..  And
not in the 'Newton's cradle' kind of way..

On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 3:17 AM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> The common thinking about successful over unity is to produce a COP of 6
> or over. The one application that you might try is a toy. If your invention
> can operate without any inputs, this type of toy could go viral. people
> would buy it just to understand how it could work. 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, fiscal recompense..  ghastly
>> subject, but i've been really burning the candle both ends on this for five
>> years and ain't got two pennies to rub together.  Like Bessler, i feel the
>> most desirable outcome for moi would be a full-disclosure IP sale; buyer
>> walks away with everything, my hands washed.
>>
>> I just crank-emailed a London IP attorney - not that i could even afford
>> their services, and not that i even have a particular 'embodiment' to
>> protect..  it really is just an interaction, albeit, performing 'the
>> impossible' - input 38 J, in 1 second it spits out 72 J, with 34 J excess
>> left after reset.  190% of unity.. so yeah, not expecting a reply, but even
>> if they are so courteous, you can't patent the laws of nature any more than
>> a PMM.
>>
>>
>> @Axil - likewise appreciated, but i really wouldn't have the means to
>> accomplish that.
>>
>> More to the point, i don't want to be wasting my time and everyone else's
>> lovingly polishing my turd of an engineering effort when BAE or Mercedes
>> could have a thousand experts doing the Lord's work on it.
>> I work as a courier for a living.  It's basically picking up packages,
>> and then delivering them - but usually the address to deliver to is ON the
>> package, so

Re: [Vo]:Successful Mechanical OU

[Vibrator !]

@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, fiscal recompense..  ghastly
subject, but i've been really burning the candle both ends on this for five
years and ain't got two pennies to rub together.  Like Bessler, i feel the
most desirable outcome for moi would be a full-disclosure IP sale; buyer
walks away with everything, my hands washed.

I just crank-emailed a London IP attorney - not that i could even afford
their services, and not that i even have a particular 'embodiment' to
protect..  it really is just an interaction, albeit, performing 'the
impossible' - input 38 J, in 1 second it spits out 72 J, with 34 J excess
left after reset.  190% of unity.. so yeah, not expecting a reply, but even
if they are so courteous, you can't patent the laws of nature any more than
a PMM.


@Axil - likewise appreciated, but i really wouldn't have the means to
accomplish that.

More to the point, i don't want to be wasting my time and everyone else's
lovingly polishing my turd of an engineering effort when BAE or Mercedes
could have a thousand experts doing the Lord's work on it.
I work as a courier for a living.  It's basically picking up packages, and
then delivering them - but usually the address to deliver to is ON the
package, so, for me, that's just about the right amount of
'responsibility'.  I can pretty much totally handle it (and they say one
day i might even get paid).   THIS on the other hand..  it's too hot a
potato for little old me.  But it also doesn't have an address on it, hence
my quandary.

On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 1:46 AM, John Berry  wrote:

> Yes, but that is hard to do.
>
> And scammers have sold stuff in the past...
>
> On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 12:17 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:
>
>> The best way to sell an idea is to produce a product based on the idea
>> that can make money and lots of it.
>>
>> On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 8:15 PM, John Berry  wrote:
>>
>>> correction:  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 could possibly be
>>>> violated and won't even humor you.
>>>>
>>>> Actually, that's not true, a lot of people who don't know what that
>>>> even means will happily believe you, but they will not be of any use 
>>>> either.
>>>>
>>>> I will entertain the idea you could be on to something.
>>>>
>>>> But, I'm not good with equations, and no one would listen to me either.
>>>>
>>>> IMO the only option you have is of building it, either in reality, or
>>>> possibly in some suitable trusted simulation software.
>>>>
>>>> You have to prove what you are claiming, there are basically 4 ways of
>>>> doing that.
>>>>
>>>> 1: Argue the case in English.
>>>> 2: Argue the case in Math.
>>>> 3: Argue the case in a simulation.
>>>> 4: Demonstrate it by building it in as open and transparent a means
>>>> possible, ideally fil the construction, use actualy transparrent materials
>>>> everywhere possible.
>>>>
>>>> Actually, there is a 5th possibility and you should consider if this is
>>>> possible carefully...
>>>>
>>>> 5: Make a 3D printable working model of your discovery.
>>>>
>>>> As for IP, f*ck it, the world needs what you have, you will never be
>>>> able to profit from this in the way you deserve, but trying to will lead to
>>>> the inventions suppression and maybe your death.
>>>>
>>>> John
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 5:27 AM, 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 

Re: [Vo]:Successful Mechanical OU

[Vibrator !]

cheap,
off-the-shelf but certified-clean generators are required to disincentivise
dangerous DIY builds.

 - It's the zenith of impossible claims.  By definition, you cannot get
past the crank-email filter, let alone door, of anyone who most needs to
know about it, or would be best-placed to oversee its safe R and
deployment.  I'm insulting all of your intelligence just by making the
claim.  I wouldn't consider asking anyone to believe a word of it, that
would be insane.  You have to see it for yourself, in full disclosure, and
even then will struggle to believe what you're seeing (welcome to my hell).

 - I'll be stiffed in a heartbeat if i just post everything up on a
website, or make an online video.   Others will patent and profit from my
years of hard work.  Same concern Bessler had.

I hate NDA's for this sort of guff, it's so awkward and unseemly.

It would be unconscionable to just sit on it, least of all in the effort to
monopolise it..  besides, i desperately WANT to share it.  But while a pot
to piss in would also be nice, ethics and safety come first.

A uni visit WOULD seem the best way to start.. i just don't see how i can
even reach that first hurdle, is all.  Nobody with their head screwed on
would or should have the slightest interest in my naive & impossible
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
> 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 perfectly...  except you're
> now in an even worse position - tangles of wires everywhere, and besides,
> everyone knows that everyone who ever appealed to a meter reading to
> support such a claim was either reading it wrong, or connecting it wrong,
> etc. etc.   Even if you trusted that my meters readings were reliable,
> they're still showing you an impossible result, and you've still no idea
> what the putative gain mechanism is.
>
>
> 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.
>
>
> So this strikes me as far more compelling evidence than any physical
> model.  It cannot be faked, and there can be no magic, mystery or gaps in
> communicating the gain principle.  It's immediate, unambiguous validation
> or dismissal, open and shut.
>
> The sims i've produced amount to full disclosure.  I've written up a brief
> not-too-rambling explanation to accompany them, but anyone au fait with
> basic mechanics only needs to see the sims, because they fully reveal the
> conclusive maths in progress...  input and output work calculated
> independently from each end, meeting in perfect agreement..  This has to be
> MUCH better than some dubious desktop model, surely..?
>
> I want to share, but sensibly, without digging myself into a trench..
>
>
> On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 9:23 PM, Chris Zell  wrote:
>
>> Build it.   Simulations aren't enough.
>>
>> I do think there might be a way to use centrifugal force that hasn't been
>> exploited yet, as with the Linevich patent.
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Successful Mechanical OU

[Vibrator !]

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 perfectly...  except you're
now in an even worse position - tangles of wires everywhere, and besides,
everyone knows that everyone who ever appealed to a meter reading to
support such a claim was either reading it wrong, or connecting it wrong,
etc. etc.   Even if you trusted that my meters readings were reliable,
they're still showing you an impossible result, and you've still no idea
what the putative gain mechanism is.


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.


So this strikes me as far more compelling evidence than any physical
model.  It cannot be faked, and there can be no magic, mystery or gaps in
communicating the gain principle.  It's immediate, unambiguous validation
or dismissal, open and shut.

The sims i've produced amount to full disclosure.  I've written up a brief
not-too-rambling explanation to accompany them, but anyone au fait with
basic mechanics only needs to see the sims, because they fully reveal the
conclusive maths in progress...  input and output work calculated
independently from each end, meeting in perfect agreement..  This has to be
MUCH better than some dubious desktop model, surely..?

I want to share, but sensibly, without digging myself into a trench..


On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 9:23 PM, Chris Zell  wrote:

> Build it.   Simulations aren't enough.
>
> I do think there might be a way to use centrifugal force that hasn't been
> exploited yet, as with the Linevich patent.
>
>

[Vo]:Successful Mechanical OU

[Vibrator !]

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?

[Vo]:Theoretical quark fusion found to be more powerful than hydrogen fusion

[Vibrator !]

https://phys.org/news/2017-11-theoretical-quark-fusion-powerful-hydrogen.html

Re: [Vo]:Magnetic Spin Vortex

[Vibrator !]

Any particle with integer spin is by definition a boson, so in the case of
an EPO it's a massive one.  Beyond that, i have nothing..!

As regards the potential source in LENR, either there's a corresponding
change in entropy in the fuel, hence a local source, or there isn't, so a
non-local one (ie. over-unity). Like most folks, i'm expecting a change in
mass of the spent fuel.  How and why it happens i have little idea, but
look forward to finding out..

..and as for the Planck scale, is there even sufficient spacetime to
manifest motion?  Doubtless, alternative dimensions become relevant 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
> current subject line regarding spin and angular momentum, although, with a
> negative energy twist.  It reminds me of Weaver coming onto the LENR Forum
> to  take on the E-Cat World  view a couple years back.
>
>
>
> Be that what it is, my question is what do you call an EPO with spin 1 and
> 0 charge?
>
>
>
> Is it a Bose particle or something else?  However, if it exists, it may be
> a nice conductor of angular momentum.  At small distances (f- meters and
> smaller) maybe angular momentum acts like charge with a plus and minus sign
> and can be divided among particles of a coherent system.  Once the
> necessary resonant condition happens to the coherent system. the EPO
> divides into 2 Fermi particles—a positron and a electron which react with
> each other or the entire system to create a new coherent system with lower
> potential energy.  Some potential energy may transform to increased orbital
> momentum energy states or may leave the system as EM energy and angular
> momentum of .511 Mev photons.
>
>
>
> The resonant conditions I suggest are created within the coherent system
> by the change in potential energy of the system caused by the intrusion of
> force fields—electric, magnetic or gravitational—in the coherent system.
> From the LENR testing it would appear that any one of  these force fields
> may catalyze the LENR phenomena.
>
>
>
> This model may fit well with  P. Hatt’s theory regarding creation of mass
> from electrons and positrons.   He is able to predict magnetic moments and
> mass of muons, protons and neutrons quite accurately with respect to
> current experimental data.
>
>
>
> (As an aside I doubt the B magnetic fields have a curl of 0 at the Plank
> scale.  Thus,  Maxwell’s equations are only an approximation of what
> happens in macroscopic systems.  The continuous math provided by the
> calculus  really does not apply at small distances IMHO.  I suspect that
> relativity theory has the same problem.)
>
>
>
> Bob Cook
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Sent from Mail <https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for
> Windows 10
>
>
>
> *From: *JonesBeene <jone...@pacbell.net>
> *Sent: *Thursday, October 19, 2017 6:35 AM
> *To: *vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Subject: *RE: [Vo]:Magnetic Spin Vortex
>
>
>
>
>
> V! sez:
>
>- I'm familiar with the producers of the above videos.  In every
>instance of these angular accelerations, they are being produced by the
>linear accelerations of Mr Hand, either waving a stator ring or poking a
>magnet at a field etc..
>
>
>
> Perhaps not. There is both a logical explanation for spontaneous rotation
> (in *Nature*, no less) - and several vids with no Mr. Hand…
>
>
>
> https://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v547/n7664/full/nature23290.html
>
>
>
> “The origin of this anisotropy is purely electronic—the so-called
> electronic nematicity. Unusually, the nematic director is not aligned with
> the crystal axes, unless a substantial orthorhombic distortion is imposed.
> The fact that this anisotropy occurs in a material that exhibits
> high-temperature superconductivity may not be a coincidence.”
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Magnetic Spin Vortex

[Vibrator !]

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 ping-pong ball trapped under a running tap does, or
a collapsing accretion disk, or water draining down a hole etc. etc.

On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 3:34 PM, JonesBeene  wrote:

> *From: *Chris Zell 
>
>
>- OK, here’s my current puzzlement: is it possible that physics has
>ignored a free energy effect within rotational inertia?
>
> It is possible that a gainful effect has been overlooked, and that is why
> it is fun to figure out which of these vids are faked. Rotational anomalies
> are probably the closest to showing a valid anomaly but most of the videos
> are fakes. Hopefully the one in thousand will show up soon. There are
> spatial avenues for augmenting inertia – such as the DCE (dynamical Casimir
> effect).
>
>
>
> However, since no one has been able to demonstrate a device that shows
> true gain … unequivocally, and which has been fully replicated, the Laws of
> Thermodynamics are still on the books (but they are not true Laws and will
> fizzle away IF adequate scientific proof arrives, even if the gain is
> slight).
>
>
>
> The reason for the original comment on the reality of a magnetic spin
> vortex (or unreality) was the approaching possibility of RTSC. For
> instance, if the following video was done in a vacuum with a disk of RTSC
> then we would have something more relevant to talk about.
>
>
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRby1Wilv-Q
>
>
>
> For now, the bubbles take the place of Mr Hand, which is the usual
> culprit.
>
>
>
> Since the vid above was never done without bubbles AFIK we have little to
> go on for a claim of true gain, other than a reasonable probability that a
> disk of RTSC could be fabricated with engineered line-pinning which
> permitted and even encouraged anisotropy, as in the Nature piece.  Think
> helicity and chirality.
>
>
>
> Electronic nematicity would need to have the nematic director both aligned
> with the crystal axis and deliberately off axis in places giving engrained
> helicity.
>
>
>
> I will ask Ron Kita to provide a recipe for favored Chiral helicity when
> the time is right. First we have to make that disk of RTSC.
>
>
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Magnetic Spin Vortex

[Vibrator !]

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 address was an overly-simplistic interpretation of Tesla's
"wheelworks" quip - as if a straightforward mechanical, gearwise coupling
between quantum and classical angular momenta might be possible.

In every case where something spins up, something else is providing field
density or direction fluctuations that are resolving to torque, but while
it costs no energy, in principle, to vary a field property, if that
variation in turn performs mechanical work, then that workload is commuted
back to the energy source - in other words, Mr Hand is burning more burrito
when waving a stator ring over a spinning rotor, than he would without the
rotor present, and the same is true in any EM or electrical example, the
counter-forces,and thus output workload, commuted to the input source via
Lenz's law.

A rise in momentum and / or energy without a corresponding loading on the
input energy supply would of course be a genuinely interesting system..





On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 2:35 PM, JonesBeene  wrote:

>
>
> V! sez:
>
>- I'm familiar with the producers of the above videos.  In every
>instance of these angular accelerations, they are being produced by the
>linear accelerations of Mr Hand, either waving a stator ring or poking a
>magnet at a field etc..
>
>
>
> Perhaps not. There is both a logical explanation for spontaneous rotation
> (in *Nature*, no less) - and several vids with no Mr. Hand…
>
>
>
> https://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v547/n7664/full/nature23290.html
>
>
>
> “The origin of this anisotropy is purely electronic—the so-called
> electronic nematicity. Unusually, the nematic director is not aligned with
> the crystal axes, unless a substantial orthorhombic distortion is imposed.
> The fact that this anisotropy occurs in a material that exhibits
> high-temperature superconductivity may not be a coincidence.”
>

Re: [Vo]:Magnetic Spin Vortex

[Vibrator !]

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 chains of elementary dipoles or domains interacting with the field.

I'm familiar with the producers of the above videos.  In every instance of
these angular accelerations, they are being produced by the linear
accelerations of Mr Hand, either waving a stator ring or poking a magnet at
a field etc.

The torque is being produced in much the same manner as water draining down
a plughole, or a ping-pong ball trapped under a running tap etc., and hence
the conclusion mooted here is akin to suggesting that water molecules must
be vortices.


Converting ambient quantum energy into mechanical, thermodynamic energy
requires passively time-variant interactions, ie., drop a mass when it's
heavy, pick it up when light.  Obviously gravity and rest mass are
constant, temporally-invariant, and closed-loop trajectories through static
fields yield zero net energy / work, so that particular example's a dead
end.  But, find an interaction in which the input force*displacement
integral is unequal to the output Fd integral, and if d is equal for both
then F must be passively time-variant, and thus the closed-loop interaction
will gain or lose energy, to the quantum interactions manifesting the force
in question (ie. the gauge boson fields, and therein, ambient quantum
momentum, AKA 'spin').   This is, by definition, what would be happening in
any hypothetically over-unity system.

Trying to somehow summon or induce raw mechanical momentum ex nihilo
directly from the vacuum is like trying to light an oak tree with a match.
Or a rock, even.  Nature has already provided perfectly good transmission
systems in the form of virtual photon / charged particle interactions, the
Higgs, gluons and WZ.  The trick is simply coercing them to output more
work than input - breaking a CoE or CoM symmetry.  Which, again, is just
another way of saying "passively time-variant asymmetric interaction" or
"free energy motor / generator".  An ostensibly-closed system with
nonetheless non-constant energy or momentum.

But magnetic fields, like gravity fields and charge, are inherently static,
having no intrinsic motion, just field / energy density variation as a
function of source distance.  The only 'action' going on is the exchange of
positive or negative-signed units of ambient quantum momentum or 'spin',
traded in units of h-bar, between the mediator bosons and moving charges or
masses they interact with.  Even then, 'static fields' are just that, and
inherently conservative.


On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 5:55 PM, bobcook39...@hotmail.com <
bobcook39...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Chris--
>
>
>
> I do not consider Thermodynamics addresses the conservation of angular
> momentum.
>
>
>
> In quantum mechanics per Planck  spin is a quantized parameter which
> exists in integral multiples of h/2pie (Planck’s constant divided by 2 pie)
> in  coherent systems.
>
>
>
> In primary particles it does not change as long as they remain primary
> particles.  For example electrons and positrons always have the same
> absolute spin and angular momentum, although one is minus and one is plus
>  ,  However. When they get close together they change into two photons each
> with one quanta of spin and angular momentum (a net 0 angular momentum
> given their respective polarizations established by the direction of their
> spin vector.)
>
>
>
> As far as I know, spin was not  a concept established at the time TD was
> formulated as a scientific theory.  I do not consider it was left out on
> purpose.  However, TD uses an energy term, enthalpy, which includes
> particle kinetic energy as in gases and liquids and phonic energy
> associated in QM’s  with molecular and nuclear “orbital” spin and angular
> momentum, which IMHO both  contribute to the heat (enthalpy) of a closed
> system.
>
>
>
>   (Nuclear orbital spin is a debated concept and may not entail “orbits”
> of sub-nuclear particles,)  The nuclear models that integrate the energy
> associated with spin are fuzzy at best IMHO.
>
>
>
> The models that take nuclear potential and kinetic energy (total energy)
> and transform it into phonic spin energy in crystals and other condensed
> matter as enthalpy are just as fuzzy.   That’s why LENR is not accepted by
> many physicists, since there is no theory they understand and does not
> contradict the existing “standard theory”.
>
>
>
> Bob Cook
>
>
>
> *From: *Chris Zell 
> *Sent: *Wednesday, October 18, 2017 7:38 AM
> *To: *vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Subject: *RE: [Vo]:Magnetic Spin Vortex
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Angular momentum is a vector quantity and in QM has kinetic energy
> associated with it.
>
>
>
> Is angular momentum in particles conservative?  Does it violate laws 

Re: [Vo]:EM Drive need not be outside the spacecraft

[Vibrator !]

LOL simply converting angular to linear momentums is trivial - think of a
piston and crank, ball billiards or whatever..

What you're on about is varying net system momentum - ie. an N3 violation,
linear or angular.  Sure, if the motor's off then CoM / CoAM applies, and
momentum's constant.  I'm not sure anyone's suggested otherwise..

But a tethered EM drive is not producing counter-torque, so net angular
momentum would not be constant...

...and if it were switched off mid-flight, and whatever it was tethered to
suddenly released to move freely, the whole rotating system would fly off
in a straight line, the two masses orbiting eachother as they fly thru
space forever, their center of mass following a straight line.

Which is not to suggest that reactionless torque can necessarilly be
converted to reactionless linear force - although i've seen at least one
suggestion that a pair of opposing-signed 'angons' nailed to the same base
would generate a net linear force, forming a 'linon' - an intruiging
thought nonetheless LOL..

The suggestion that linear can be converted to angular was yours,
remember...  you were saying that an EM drive tethered this way
demonstrates a further conservation violation.

I'm simply pointing out that inertia doesn't care what the direction of
acceleration is, it's purely a function of how much mass has been
accelerated / through how much space & time.  Linear inertia is invariant
due to mass constancy, while angular MoI is a variable function of mass
times radius.  But either way, the energy disunity is between the savings
made on inputting momentum from within the accelerating frame, versus its
usual KE value as measured from the external static frame, where N3 still
applies - it's an excess of output work by the Higgs field, in relation to
a deficit of input work on the part of our accelerating net system momentum.

My point's simply that there's no logical paradox or supernatural
invocations etc. - the resolutions are already implicit within the terms of
the proposition.   Any symmetry break implies an open thermodynamic system,
and the source or sink is whatever's responsible for the passive force/time
variation.  This applies to all of them - overunity or underunity - all
we're talking about is work performed by forces, or else its absence.

The argument that a claimed non-classical thruster can't work because it
would 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 turned off (no thrust) putting the tether in place doesn't
> change the angular momentum at all.  The cross product of the linear
> momentum of the object with its radius vector remains unchanged.  Since
> it's exerting no torque on the pivot, that must be true, classically.
>
> Meanwhile, the linear momentum of the tethered object is changing
> constantly, as its velocity vector rotates.  But it's also exerting a force
> on the pivot point, as a result of which the linear momentum of whatever
> the pivot is anchored to is also changing constantly, in such a way that
> the sum of the two remains constant.  (Energy, not so much, as it goes as
> the square of the velocity and hence has zero derivative WRT velocity at
> zero velocity.)
>
> There's no interconversion between linear and angular momentum.   As I
> already said, they're conserved separately.
>
>

Re: [Vo]:EM Drive need not be outside the spacecraft

[Vibrator !]

What's wrong with the centripetal tether example?

Are you supposing that there's a fundamentally different interaction
manifesting inertia in angular vs linear accelerations?  "Angons" vs
"linons" or something?

On Thu, Dec 29, 2016 at 5:42 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence <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; the claim is explicitly a classical
>> symmetry break, that's its whole prospective value, and reason for our
>> interest.
>>
>> It is of course trivial that linear momentum can be converted to angular
>> momentum,
>>
>
> Do tell.
>
> Got an example of that?
>
>

Re: [Vo]:EM Drive need not be outside the spacecraft

[Vibrator !]

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.

It is of course trivial that linear momentum can be converted to angular
momentum, so the distinction in this sense is also redundant - this is one
classical CoM violation, not two discrete ones.

Plus the classical CoE violation.

It's important to keep that "classical" bit in the description of the
phenomenon in question - evidence of the non-conservation of momentum or
energy is intrinsically impossible - akin to positing evidence of a
causality violation; an inherently oxymoronic position..  We can only
rationally intepret an apparent example of non-conservation as evidence
that a system usually thermodynamically closed is somehow open.

So we don't simply halt at the prospect, presume we've run out of road and
pack up to go home..  we park up our expectations, grab a few essentials
and continue following the trail that's lead us here..

Both the CoM and CoE anomalies are eminently resolvable from first
principles.

To simplify the system, let's presume we have a passively superconducting
frustum.  Because I^2 * R * T is the only disssipative loss mechanism
involved, eliminating it provides a perfectly-efficient means of applying a
momentum asymmetry... but NOT thrust!

The thrust is, in turn, produced by the momentum asymmetry.

This is the key distinction.  Our input energy is only performing a
constant internal workload - specifically, generating an asymmetry in the
ratios of positive to negative ambient momenta exchanged between the
virtual photon field and opposite ends of the frustum.

In principle, merely rendering a field costs nothing, aside from a small
but notionally conserved  input energy.  Only if that field then performs
work, is that workload applied to the field-source energy supply, via
Newton's 3rd law or its EM counterpart, Lenz's law.

Furthermore, if that workload is merely mass displacement at constant
velocity then all energy invested in the acceleration remains conserved in
that momentum, and can likewise be recouped to the field source.

However the acceleration corresponding to a cyclical (ie. closed-loop)
momentum asymmetry represents work performed by the field itself - or, more
precisely, the quantum exchanges that constitute the substance of the force
in question. The input energy only needs to generate and sustain the
imbalance of opposing momenta.

To clarify this, let's eliminate the EM component entirely, and examine a
hypothetical but purely mechanical CoM violation:

 - suppose we can 'turn off' mass at will, accelerating a body with zero
inertia, before switching it back on again, and so generating free momentum
and energy

..so in this scenario, the Higgs field has output mechanical work for us,
we've netted ambient momentum and energy directly from the vacuum
potential, and the only cost to us was that required to momentarilly
disable the mass / inertia.  But crucially, we input no work against the
Higgs..

However even if that input energy was far greater than the output KE
netted, provided we can keep repeating the interaction, building up
successively more net system momentum, we eventually pass a threshold
wherein the net system KE as measured from the non-inertial frame exceeds
the net input energy as measured from within the accelerating system.

If the EM-drive principle is viable, then its subsequent gain in energy and
momentum is a direct linear function of its internal momentum asymmetry,
not its input energy, and its internal efficiency or CoP never exceeds
unity...

The confusion arises when we assume that a passively-superconducting EM
drive would only be spending energy on its own mechanical acceleration -
after all if we've eliminated heat loss then acceleration seems the only
remaining workload...

..however here, the net acceleration is the sum of not just the applied
positive momenta, but also the circumvented or negated negative momenta!
IE. it's a function of the momentum disunity, which can be anything from
100% (ie. full cancellation of counter-force) down to any non-zero value.
So the net system energy is augmented by the KE value of its diverging
reference frame.

The clearest handle on this is given by consideration of just why
KE=1/2mV^2 in the first place -  why does KE have different dimensions to
momentum (P=mV)..?  The reasons are obvious when you realise them, but
subtle enough that resolution of this "vis viva" debate was surely THE most
fundamental breakthrough of the enlightenment in classical mechanics...

Energy evolves as the half square of inertia times velocity as a direct
consequence of the constraint of Newton's 3rd law - we must inevitably
accelerate reaction mass, and the faster our reaction mass is moving away
from us, the 

Re: [Vo]:Obtained stable magnetic bound state of locked counter wise spinning of magnets

[Vibrator !]

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) field is a free energy gradient.  The automatic flipping of
the remanant flux against its own coercivity would provide hefty gains per
cycle.

It is clear however that negative hysteresis appears to be fundamentally
contrary to the nature of ferromagnetism and remanance / retentivity, so
further speculation on the matter seems of little value in the present
context.

It does however throw a quick spotlight on the relationship between
time-varying forces and the conservation of energy, and this area is right
up our street..

Noether's theorem is often rather crassly summarised as demonstrating that
the conservation laws are time-invariant.  But of course this is a
perfectly trite statement - the CoE laws are the same today as yesterday,
big whoop... and entirely missing the real lesson, which is not so trivial..

The more salient point becomes apparent in applying the concept to an
interaction, comprising discrete input vs output (ie. inbound vs outbound)
force times displacement integrals (classical work); if the force in
question is time-variant, then the balance of energy between our two
integrals is a function of our applied displacement velocities in relation
to the field's own finite rates of change.

In symmetrical / non-time varying interactions, force variations can be
treated as propogating at C, effectively instantaneously, thus ensuring
energy symmetry regardless of any variation in input vs output velocities
(ie. mass & gravity are mediated at C so asymmetric gravitational
interactions are impossible).  However in material or aggregagte systems,
effective field propogation rates can be finite (per "slow light"
phenomena), opening up this arena of passively time-varying systems, with
time-dependent net energies...

In other words, any passively time-varying system is an open thermodynamic
system - it may or may not have constant energy, but cannot be
thermodynamically closed.

Hysteresis losses are an example of extra work that must be performed
against the field - an excess of input work for a corresponding output
integral.

In other words, hysteresis losses are inherently non-dissipative - the
additional input work required, by definition, is a function of ordinary
force and displacement - the extra workload is principally magnetic.
Non-dissipative loss mechanisms are the corollary, inverse phenomena of
thermodynamic gains - it's exactly the same form of asymmetry, with the
direction reversed.  But the same animal nonetheless.

However hysteresis losses are normally only encountered, and hence their
implications considered, in terms of their effects on conventional EM
systems such as motors and transformers, in which case they result in an
additional load upon the power supply - more current is needed to produce a
stronger applied field, incurring higher resistance losses from the coils
and net circuit, and thus a dissipative loss mechanism.

And at this juncture, something with profound implications has been cast by
the wayside..

But suppose for a moment that we had passively-superconducting circuits
(not in itself prohibited) - we'd still have to perform more input work to
raise the current and flux density, but we could then recoup that
investment coming back down the other side, when the domains are aligning
in their preferential direction, and we'll have incurred no such incidental
heating costs.  The net sum's still zero, but we haven't lost anything
either.

Another example would be entropy viscosity (Sv) as investigated by
Rutherford in his first paper (c. 1886) - normally an engineering obstacle,
since a motor or transformer pulsed faster than the response frequency of
its magnetic cores cannot induce any more flux with rising current, hence
the only remaining workload beyond an Sv-restricted max speed would again
be resistance losses.  As such, Sv is usually dismissed as dissipative when
it, too, is not - resistance losses are surely dissipative, but incidental
to the nature of Sv losses which are intrinsically time-variant.

As an example, suppose a magnet is allowed to attract itself across some
small distance, to a lump of rough iron.  Due to the diversity of the
iron's internal domain structures, different regions have varying remanance
and coercivities, some domains are pinned harder than others and so its
magnetisation curve is non-linear and laggy - holdout domains are still
popping into alignment, even some time after the magnets have joined
together and stopped moving.

So the induced field is increasing, ambiently, of its own accord. If we
then separate the magnet from the core, we'll have to input more mechanical
effort to prise them apart, than they originally exerted when 

Re: [Vo]:Obtained stable magnetic bound state of locked counter wise spinning of magnets

[Vibrator !]

RKE = half the angular inertia times angular displacement / time, or half
MoI times freq^2.

MoI of a solid mass is simple, so we can easily and accurately derive the
samples' RKE as a function of acceleration / time (many smartphones have
60Hz or higher camera speeds and a laser tacho will thus tell us exactly
how much energy has been imparted by the air jet and base rotor.

Ideally, it would be desirable to engineer a situation in which
acceleration is entirely self contained (ie. without using the air jet).
We can then determine exactly how much work has been done by the base
rotor.

For instance their may be a combination of MoI and base rotor speeds that
is only just stable below a threshold rotor speed, which can then be raised
above that threshold causing a disproportionate acceleration into the new
stable mode.

However if the ultimate goal is to harness energy from the magnetic field,
then we already know how to do this..  the requisite condition is a
time-dependent asymmetric exchange of positive and negative forces /
torques, effected by manipulating field change propogation.rates as an
inverse function of field density (ie. denser = slower).  Specifically, the
rates of inceasing vs decreasing induced flux density must be non-linear,
in order to yeild a non-zero balance of forces.

This is the only viable route, consistent with the conservation laws and
Noether.  Occasionally some may stumble across it inadvertently, while
attributing the result to their own intended, but fallacious principles,
and are thus unable to generalise it, making robust replications and
further development difficult (ie. Yildiz, and likely others).

Bottom line is that there has to be a passive time-dependent force
variation - this is implicit in the very notion of any asymmetry between
closed-loop input and output force / displacement integrals.



On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 9:22 AM, H Ucar <jjam...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Apperently an direct interaction causing counterwise rotation which not
> consume energy conflict with COE. This is similar to a case of a
> motorcyle accelerate on a freely rotating circular  track causing the track
> rotate backward due to Newton's 3rd law. Even the motorcyle does not
> accelerates the air resistance is transmitted to the track by the wheels
> and continue to push it back.
>
>
>
>
> -- Original message--
> *From: *H Ucar
> *Date: *Thu, Mar 24, 2016 23:23
> *To: *vortex-l@eskimo.com;
> *Cc: *
> *Subject:*Re: [Vo]:Obtained stable magnetic bound state of locked counter
> wise spinning of magnets
>
>
> Counterwise rotation in this case is an anomaly from engineering point of
> view where there is no friction and no rigid constraints, altrough
> vibrations are sources of all sort  of weird things hard to model. For
> example rogue waves has been never predicted and still no good model
> exists. Even it may be a link between LENR and rogue 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: *
> *Subject:*Re: [Vo]:Obtained stable magnetic bound state of locked counter
> wise spinning of magnets
>
> Thanks for the updates and clarifications, i'd inferred incorrectly that
> the samples were only suspended from below and that the reason for posting
> was anomolous levitation... having now watched the series on YT
> everything's clear.
>
> If you followed the original whipmag discussions, i concluded that Al was
> cruelly playing OC (OverConfident was the original designer) - there were
> only two possibilities; either a hidden pulse coil or an inadvertent Orbo
> replication.  Neos have near-infinitessimal Sv, so it seems unlikely that
> the relative velocity between rotor and stator was high enough to be
> affected by the response freqs of the magents.  Others (including myself)
> tested identical magnet grades across wider speed ranges without detecting
> any anomalies.  This isn't a conclusive dismissal, but the likelihood that
> he had a passive temporal asymmetry (the only viable means of genuine
> energy gain) is IMHO almost nil.
>
> Perhaps most tellingly, Al himself always denied OU, in spite of the
> acceleration, instead proffering nonsensical appeals to tribolectric
> effects, and other guff..  it is inarguable that gain occurred, he knows
> what energy is, so the absolute refusal to acknowedge OU can only be
> construed one way, as far as i'm concerned; it was a little chest-beating
> display to indulge his pathoskeptic hu mour.  OC sadly became terminally
> ill not long after, so i hope Al did the decent thing while he still had
> time..
>
> The "gearwise"

Re: [Vo]:Obtained stable magnetic bound state of locked counter wise spinning of magnets

[Vibrator !]

Fantastic demo, again...

However i feel the analogy of a ball trapped under a running tap seems to
adequately explain the situation - the relative angular velocities are high
enough that the angular direction is incidental to the fact that it's
simply a fast alternating field (the same principle behind AGW sync in the
Whipmag), and the mid-air suspension is similarly the net zero vertical
displacements of the rapid equal and opposite vertical forces in
homeostasis / dynamic equilibrium with the zero balance of induced vertical
momentums.

All else being equal, there should be a predictable vertical offset due to
gravity when the magnet is suspended from the opposite direction.

Another interesting angle would be to attempt to modulte the harmonic phase
of the sync as a function of MoI of the spinning sample - if the rotors are
painted black across half their diameter you could use a cheap laser tacho
to compare their velocities to the base magnet.

You could then modify the suspended rotor by adding a lightweight rigid
radial extension of some kind, along which two small heavier masses can be
affixed at equal radius 180° opposite to each other.  In this way the mass
of the rotor remains constant, and its radial distribution can be varied
between runs to compare relative sync velocities as a function of varying
angular inertia.

Alternatively find or fabricate a selection of lightweight washers / rings
with equal mass and varying radii that can be attached to the samples..

For any given set of fixed parameters, there is likely more than one stable
sync rate, and the incidents of max energy transfer follow the harmonic
series (first the unison, then factors of two, then three, etc. of the base
rate), with the transmission efficiency decreasing as a function of impulse
/ angle.

This same dynamic applies to multiple planes, encompassing precession and
nutation etc..

On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 9:23 PM, H Ucar <jjam...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> Counterwise rotation in this case is an anomaly from engineering point of
> view where there is no friction and no rigid constraints, altrough
> vibrations are sources of all sort  of weird things hard to model. For
> example rogue waves has been never predicted and still no good model
> exists. Even it may be a link between LENR and rogue 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: *
> *Subject:*Re: [Vo]:Obtained stable magnetic bound state of locked counter
> wise spinning of magnets
>
> Thanks for the updates and clarifications, i'd inferred incorrectly that
> the samples were only suspended from below and that the reason for posting
> was anomolous levitation... having now watched the series on YT
> everything's clear.
>
> If you followed the original whipmag discussions, i concluded that Al was
> cruelly playing OC (OverConfident was the original designer) - there were
> only two possibilities; either a hidden pulse coil or an inadvertent Orbo
> replication.  Neos have near-infinitessimal Sv, so it seems unlikely that
> the relative velocity between rotor and stator was high enough to be
> affected by the response freqs of the magents.  Others (including myself)
> tested identical magnet grades across wider speed ranges without detecting
> any anomalies.  This isn't a conclusive dismissal, but the likelihood that
> he had a passive temporal asymmetry (the only viable means of genuine
> energy gain) is IMHO almost nil.
>
> Perhaps most tellingly, Al himself always denied OU, in spite of the
> acceleration, instead proffering nonsensical appe als to tribolectric
> effects, and other guff..  it is inarguable that gain occurred, he knows
> what energy is, so the absolute refusal to acknowedge OU can only be
> construed one way, as far as i'm concerned; it was a little chest-beating
> display to indulge his pathoskeptic humour.  OC sadly became terminally ill
> not long after, so i hope Al did the decent thing while he still had time..
>
> The "gearwise" and "counter-gearwise" neologisms were about his only
> redeeming contributions, but having established himself as a manipulative
> cynic i wouldn't trust a further word out of his mouth...
>
> But whatever the inspirations, you're obviously doing genuine work and
> taking things forward, with a neat tracking solution too!  I'll have to
> read up on your reasearch when i get time..
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 3:29 AM, H Ucar <jjam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> This is true if diametrically polarised magnets are placed side by side
>> as gears. Al (of whipmag) termed this config as 'gearwise' and the case o

Re: [Vo]:Obtained stable magnetic bound state of locked counter wise spinning of magnets

[Vibrator !]

Thanks for the updates and clarifications, i'd inferred incorrectly that
the samples were only suspended from below and that the reason for posting
was anomolous levitation... having now watched the series on YT
everything's clear.

If you followed the original whipmag discussions, i concluded that Al was
cruelly playing OC (OverConfident was the original designer) - there were
only two possibilities; either a hidden pulse coil or an inadvertent Orbo
replication.  Neos have near-infinitessimal Sv, so it seems unlikely that
the relative velocity between rotor and stator was high enough to be
affected by the response freqs of the magents.  Others (including myself)
tested identical magnet grades across wider speed ranges without detecting
any anomalies.  This isn't a conclusive dismissal, but the likelihood that
he had a passive temporal asymmetry (the only viable means of genuine
energy gain) is IMHO almost nil.

Perhaps most tellingly, Al himself always denied OU, in spite of the
acceleration, instead proffering nonsensical appeals to tribolectric
effects, and other guff..  it is inarguable that gain occurred, he knows
what energy is, so the absolute refusal to acknowedge OU can only be
construed one way, as far as i'm concerned; it was a little chest-beating
display to indulge his pathoskeptic humour.  OC sadly became terminally ill
not long after, so i hope Al did the decent thing while he still had time..

The "gearwise" and "counter-gearwise" neologisms were about his only
redeeming contributions, but having established himself as a manipulative
cynic i wouldn't trust a further word out of his mouth...

But whatever the inspirations, you're obviously doing genuine work and
taking things forward, with a neat tracking solution too!  I'll have to
read up on your reasearch when i get time..


On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 3:29 AM, H Ucar <jjam...@gmail.com> wrote:

> This is true if diametrically polarised magnets are placed side by side as
> gears. Al (of whipmag) termed this config as 'gearwise' and the case of
> magnets spinning in same direction as 'counter gearwise'. He hed obtained
> cgw with a composite magnet assembly apperently self running. I had
> obtained cgw with two diametrically polar. magnets and I recall I reported
> on vortex. But on this floating magnet setup magnets spin axes are nearly
> 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 this too is anomolous.  Have to
> say, everything's pointing to diametric polarisation - alternatig fields,
> so Earnshaw doesn't apply, but the combination of levitation
> and counter-rotation is still cool.. would make for a neat executive toy..)
>
> Yes, I think it is cool invention too, but more interested to me the
> applicability of this bound state mechanism in particle physics. See my
> eariler submissions in vortex on this subject.
>

Re: [Vo]:Obtained stable magnetic bound state of locked counter wise spinning of magnets

[Vibrator !]

(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 this too is anomolous.  Have to say,
everything's pointing to diametric polarisation - alternatig fields, so
Earnshaw 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
> 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 Faraday's paradox, the fields themselves are
> effectively stationary).
>
> If OTOH one or both magnets are diamterically (or otherwise off-axially)
> polarised, then we have an alternating field and Earnshaw doesn't apply.
>
>
> If the former case is true, then are the magents a solid alloy type, or
> sintered (ie. soft ferromagnets and NdFeB are usually sintered, the latter
> in a chromed jacket)?  Since this may influence the types of EMFs that
> could be generated.
>
> Earnshaw also specifically applies to ferromagnetic (ie dipolar)
> interacatons - if the system is complicated by paramagnetic or diamagnetic
> materials, stable levitation is not precluded.
>
> More info would be interesting!
>
> On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 10:03 PM, H Ucar <jjam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> That is while the base magnet attached to motor in a vertical axis
>> spinning clockwise, the floating magnet in air keeps spinning counter
>> clockwise in phase locked mode 1 cm above the base magnet. In order to
>> obtain this mode the floating magnet is initially forced to spin counter
>> wise using air jet. Once it gains enough speed it continues to spin by
>> itself by the 'negative' torque from the base magnet.
>>
>> Note that the floating magnet spin axis have small angular oscillation
>> locked to base magnet spin too.
>>
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Obtained stable magnetic bound state of locked counter wise spinning of magnets

[Vibrator !]

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 Faraday's paradox, the fields themselves are
effectively stationary).

If OTOH one or both magnets are diamterically (or otherwise off-axially)
polarised, then we have an alternating field and Earnshaw doesn't apply.


If the former case is true, then are the magents a solid alloy type, or
sintered (ie. soft ferromagnets and NdFeB are usually sintered, the latter
in a chromed jacket)?  Since this may influence the types of EMFs that
could be generated.

Earnshaw also specifically applies to ferromagnetic (ie dipolar)
interacatons - if the system is complicated by paramagnetic or diamagnetic
materials, stable levitation is not precluded.

More info would be interesting!

On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 10:03 PM, H Ucar  wrote:

> That is while the base magnet attached to motor in a vertical axis
> spinning clockwise, the floating magnet in air keeps spinning counter
> clockwise in phase locked mode 1 cm above the base magnet. In order to
> obtain this mode the floating magnet is initially forced to spin counter
> wise using air jet. Once it gains enough speed it continues to spin by
> itself by the 'negative' torque from the base magnet.
>
> Note that the floating magnet spin axis have small angular oscillation
> locked to base magnet spin too.
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s)

[Vibrator !]

>Your example is similar to what happens when an electron is located at an
elevated energy level.  Do you believe that the atom does not have
additional mass when compared to one that is in the lowest energy state?
The energy that is going to be radiated must come from somewhere and I
believe it shows up as a mass increase of the atomic system.

And when the battery is recharged by the use of regenerative braking, mass
is returned that is equal to the mass lost in driving the motor.  What is
the source of chemical energy if not due to stored potential energy of
electrons? E=M*c*c appears to apply in every case that I have seen. <



Momentum's conserved so energy rises with orbital radius,and a
corresponding mass increase is expected - the actual form of this
particular "PE" is KE.

But PE could depend on something as abstract as an entropy change.
"Potential" = conditional, not yet manifest.

The difference between nuclear and chemical PE would be the distinction
between relativistic and rest mass - and the very fact they're contextual
underlines my point; a chemical reaction doesn't have nuclear PE and vice
versa. PE is subjective, context-dependent.


>Here that same arguement applies as before.  Except that several
electron lower energy states exist instead of just one.<

...and so when a system's PE is indeterminate, any corresponding
relativistic mass increase must be in a superposition until it collapses
into a definite state..!?  A given reaction might unleash 2 or 3 ev, but
prior to an outcome we'd have to assign a mass range rather than a definite
weight?  This is what i have trouble with..

If i slide my beer across the table, it could land on the floor, or my
lap.  Its PE depends on which part of the desk i knock it off, 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>
> Sent: Tue, Mar 15, 2016 10:32 pm
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s)
> ...
> >For instance, i dig a 1 meter-deep hole next to a 1 kg mass, at 1 G the
> system now has 9.81 J of PE. But is there a relativistic mass increase (i
> don't care how small it'd be - multiply the scale if you wish)?<
>
> Your example is similar to what happens when an electron is located at an
> elevated energy level.  Do you believe that the atom does not have
> additional mass when compared to one that is in the lowest energy state?
> The energy that is going to be radiated must come from somewhere and I
> believe it shows up as a mass increase of the atomic system.
>
> >Similarly, a vertical wheel is balanced on a hilltop, with an unequal
> drop on either side, so the system's PE is indeterminate - could
> relativistic mass also be indeterminate?<
>
> Here that same arguement applies as before.  Except that several
> electron lower energy states exist instead of just one.
>
> >But assuming our EM craft was battery powered, and that relativistic mass
> does apply to chemical PE, it is still the chemical PE that has been
> converted to work (acceleration of the craft, relative to its point of
> origin), not its relativistic mass energy equivalency, which itself is
> incidental, aside from a minute reduction in the craft's net inertia.<
>
> And when the battery is recharged by the use of regenerative braking, mass
> is returned that is equal to the mass lost in driving the motor.  What is
> the source of chemical energy if not due to stored potential energy of
> electrons? E=M*c*c appears to apply in every case that I have seen.
>
> >A nuclear power plant would match your description though - the gain in
> net KE (vehicle plus ejecta, where applicable) would be equal to the mass
> deficit.<...
>
> I consider nuclear energy as being analogous to electron orbital energy.
> The force keeping the nucleus together performs the same function and in
> that case everyone seems to accept that this store of potential
> energy results in a nuclear mass decrease as fission takes place.  Nothing
> but a tradeoff between potential energy and other forms.  How is that
> process completely different from PE stored by electrons in orbit?
> Dave
>

Re: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s)

[Vibrator !]

But the PE of the system in question is 1 kg * 1 G * 1 meter, not the full
distance from heaven to hell.

Suppose we had a scale sensitive enough to register a relativistic mass
increase due to PE, and then we roll a dice to decide how mach mass to
drop, or how far...  is the reading on the scale in some kind of
superposition until the dice lands?

And where would the mass increase actually be manifest - in the mass to be
dropped, or the earth, or the net system?  (i don't mind if we'd have to
weigh the whole Sol system - doesn't have to be practically viable, just in
principle)

If i have to input 9.81 J to raise 1 kg by 1 meter, but only half that -
4.9 J - to excavate a 1 meter-deep hole, both systems have equal output PE,
yet unequal input PE..  So what would our hypothetical Schrodinger's
weighing scale have to say about this?

E=MC^2 ascribes relativistic mass to KE - which is why C is mechanically
unattainable - but not "potential", which, as the name implies, can be
conditional and even indeterminate - ie. an unstable system can have a
multitude of possible stable configurations it could collapse into, each
with a unique energy profile.  Because of this, i have difficulty accepting
the oft-mentioned example of a loaded spring posessing such a mass increase
- it would be selective evidence for a generalisation encompassing
indeterminate systems...  surely, either all PE has relativistic mass, or
none does.

However even if i'm mistaken, and a relativistic mass increase CAN be in a
superposition of states, in that case it's not a conserved quantity either,
and free to come and go with the ebb and flow of potential..  just as it
does with KE.  Which is just as well, since if an EM drive really could
reach C, its wet weight would be infinite..

I can think of one permutation that might be an exception - a
nuclear-powered EM drive; supposing perfect efficiency, would the
relativistic mass gained from KE equal the mass deficit of the spent fuel?
Tricky one, that.

Or for a real head-twister, suppose we have a Bessler wheel powering our EM
drive - gravity is equivalent to an acceleration, so acceleration of the
craft in turn powers the Bessler mechanism, in a positive feedback loop.
The harder it accelerates, the more PE it has to accelerate even harder.
Fueled by its own acceleration, it's limited only by how much inertial
force it can withstand... but in principle it has infinite PE, and again,
the corresponding mass increase, as some would have it..


You could knock these out all day - bottom line is that a blanket
assumption that relativistic mass applies to potential, implies all manner
of absurdities and infinities.  Which doesn't necessarily 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 rest mass.  I know the
> conclusion
> > that potential energy raises a system's mass is commonly accepted as an
> > inevitable implication of GR, but it's one frought with pitfalls:
> >
> > For instance, i dig a 1 meter-deep hole next to a 1 kg mass, at 1 G the
> > system now has 9.81 J of PE.  But is there a relativistic mass increase
> (i
> > don't care how small it'd be - multiply the scale if you wish)?
> >
> > What if the mass never falls into the hole?
> >
> > Similarly, a vertical wheel is balanced on a hilltop, with an unequal
> drop
> > on either side, so the system's PE is indeterminate - could relativistic
> > mass also be indeterminate?
> >
>
> The gravitational potential energy has a maximum finite value at an
> infinite distance from the earth.
> The point at infinity ensures that gravitational potential energy does
> not have to be arbitrary.
> As one moves closer to Earth the potential energy decreases relative
> to this maxium value.
>
> Harry
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s)

[Vibrator !]

>From a static observer's POV, such a craft would be able to gain more KE
than the PE it was provided with.  So spacetime would have to be positively
contributing energy, rather than the craft simply swimming in quantum goo.

On board the craft, CoE holds - the correct amount of work is being
performed by the spent energy.  One can only assume it is from this frame
that Shawyer resolves the anomaly.  He calculates the correct amount of
thrust for the expended PE and simply ignores the anomaly from the
non-inertial frame...

On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 9:05 PM, <mix...@bigpond.com> 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 we would normally expect (distance over which
> a given force is applied keeps rising) - but how does it measure
> "distance"?  Relative to what, exactly?   Without physical reaction mass,
> such a system has its own unique reference frame - from within which,
> energy may be conserved, but which from without, cannot be.
> >
> >I mean this not as a crtitique against the plausibility of such systems,
> and share the prevailing cautious optimism.  But if they do work, then we
> also have an energy anomaly.
> [snip]
> Is the energy anomaly resolved if it pushes against the mass of the
> universe
> (i.e. against space-time itself)? In which case it would indeed be just
> like a
> train on rails. In short, momentum is conserved, and all the energy ends
> up with
> the moving object. I suspect that this is the basis of Shawyers argument.
>
> Regards,
>
> Robin van Spaandonk
>
> http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
>
>