Re: [Vo]:Successful Mechanical OU
Here is Veritasium doing his own version Eric Laithwaite's demonstration https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GeyDf4ooPdo There might be something special about rotational motion but I think conventional physics explains this particular situtation quite well. In my own research I noticed something unsual from a purely mathemtical standpoint concerning the geometric relationship between a ring and a horizontal surface. If the ring lays flat on the surface, then as long as the motions involved are relatively slow, the relative motion between any point of contact between the ring and the surface is the same whether or not the ring is sliding uniformly over the surface (system A) or if the surface is rotating underneath the ring (system B). See this diagram: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Abi_9FUReRGNKL65zggAKk4TN812cO3Y/view?usp=sharing If my mathematical analysis is incorrect it would be nice to know. harry On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 11:34 AM, 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
As a Gedanken experiment, is it possible that inertia could be have a free energy aspect to it, if it is slightly more persistent than thought? Say you have a rotor that absorbs energy when accelerated and sheds it during deacceleration ( as loaded then) – if you quickly switch between these states, is it possible that it persists in rotating during deacceleration to a tiny degree in excess of what conservation would suggest? Hence, overunity/free energy during brief moments……
Re: [Vo]:Successful Mechanical OU
olour-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
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 consequence of CoM and CoE >> holding precisely as they're supposed to, beyond any possibility of error. >> I am absolutely susceptible
Re: [Vo]:Successful Mechanical OU
> > 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). Precisely! If we cycle this interaction using the angular - linear example, then we're inputting momentum, to Earth, from gravity, on each full cycle.. thus the "center of momentum" reference frame between Earth and the weight has been shifted upwards on each cycle! We're applying reactionless momentum to Earth, from its own gravity field! The net system of Earth-plus-weight has thus become an effective warp drive - gaining unilateral momentum sourced from its own gravity well / 'warp field'.. However there's nothing special about Earth or gravity in this interaction either - force is force, F=mA, A=F/m, m=F/A, regardless of its provenance or rest frame! The 'earth' (or whatever stands in for it) is thus momentarily accelerating upwards towards an inertially-suspended mass that is not accelerating back down in reciprocation! (I imagine you intended 19.62 kg-m^2-rad/sec^2 here?) > Beg your pardon, yes - it's just a 1 second acceleration though, so still the same value. That value IS 9.81 however, not 19.62 - remember we're now dealing with an angular inertia, not a gravitating one, so the only force being applied between it and the weight is 9.81 N / 9.81 N-m. 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? > For 1 kg at 1 m radius assume an equal spool radius, so we're on the same page.. the applied 9.81 N force pulls the cord whilst pushing the weight up. The weight thus hovers in mid air under no net vertical force, whilst the rotor gains 9.81 p/s. This is effectively 'reactionless' momentum with regards to the 'closed system' of two interacting inertias - only one of which was accelerated, but which we also wouldn't have been able to accelerate without the other one to apply a the force against. You're right however that it isn't really 'closed' since it encompasses Earth, via gravity. Again, this is not the interaction i'm using to create energy. But it is an interesting example of conventional assumptions being challenged. If you change the moment of inertia of something that is already spinning > then its spin-rate and stored energy changes. This is the well known > effect that occurs when a spinning skater pulls in her arms. Her moment of > inertia decreases which means that spin rate must increase (to keep angular > momentum the same), and likewise the energy stored in the spin must > increase (she supplied this energy by pulling her arms in against > centrifugal force). > I meant, if we change the mass of the rotor, keeping all else equal but changing its MoI, then the same 9.81 N force will cause the 1 kg weight to rise or fall, instead of just sitting there vertically balanced. Wasn't referring to inertial torques from changing MoI on the fly. My point was simply to provide graphic demonstration of the equality of the two inertias, despite having different dimensions. Fundamentally 'inertia' is a function of how much mass has been accelerated through how much space in how much time - this resolves angular and linear terms. Gravity is a 9.81 N force, so the time rate of change in momentum of a gravitating system is 9.81 p/s, regardless of the relative nature of radians as units of angular displacement. Again, consider the weight tugging the horizontally-sliding mass - no matter how heavy that non-gravitating inertia, the rate of change in p is 9.81 p/s/kg of gravitating mass. This does not change when we switch the non-gravitating mass to an angular inertia instead, irrespective of the relative units we use to describe its velocity! This change in momentum value as a function of time accelerating is usually symmetrical to the momentum value as a function of GPE / GMH - so we would calculate the same potential change in net system momentum from either the time or height references. But add your 'ice skater' effect into that mix and that symmetry gets broken... Sorry but I don't see your argument. I am not sure what you mean by > "absolute" inertia? Are you speaking of inertia (=mass) or moment of > inertia (=mass x radius^2) or maybe momentum (m v) or maybe angular > momentum (m r^2 rad/s)? They are all very different quantities with > different units and different dimensions and cannot be added or compared in > magnitude. I think i've made my point here - just because we're measuring, say, 19.62 kg-m^-rad/sec /sec^2 does not mean we're obtaining twice as much angular momentum as another rotor with half the
Re: [Vo]:Successful Mechanical OU
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 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
Re: [Vo]:Successful Mechanical OU
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
> progressively harder-pinned domains succumb to the growing influence of
> their lower-coercivity neighbors. After some time, the clicking noise
> abates, and so we know the sample's at Bmax.
>
> We now prise them apart again, however because B
Re: [Vo]:Successful Mechanical OU
At any rate, I think you can agree that some thought experiments, seemingly applying the laws of physics as we understand them lead to some possibilities for breaking the laws or physics as we understand them. And if software than could calculate all of that was run and predicted some violation, it might be correct based on out understanding and maybe in reality too and not a glitch. I personally doubt any of these schemes is how true violations happen, they occur IMO by disturbing the fabric of space, mske interactions asymmetric. On Tue, Jun 5, 2018 at 10:04 PM, John Shop wrote: > On 5/06/2018 1:51 PM, John Berry wrote: > > Actually, I have another one... > > Take a large loop apply a current, we see that each side of the loop > experiences a pushing outwards. > > Now, we remove one side, from the loop and replace it with capacitor > plates. > > No we energize a current through our broken loop and each side feels a > force pushing away from the center. > But, we only have 3 sides now, the 4th side is a displacement current, and > while the displacement current creates a magnetic field, on what is the > force placed? > > It would seem that where the circuit completed through the electric > permitivity of space, it would be space that is the charge carrier, maybe > it is virtual particles being polarized? > > The point is that while this circuit will only produce thrust for a moment > before we need to reverse our connections, we can do so and the directions > all reverse except the direction of thrust which is the same. > > This is interesting as if you can put a current, if space can be > polarized, then it can also be thrust against! > > Indeed I also thought about this situation at great length a long time > ago, and even built a device which might have worked. However at the time > I did not have an RF generator so tried to drive it by exciting the circuit > with sparking. I did not see any effect and doing some calculations > suggested that any effect that may be obtained with reasonable componentry > will be negligibly small. How do you get even a fraction of an amp to flow > through a capacitor with large spacing between the plates!? Only by using > very high frequencies! And then you need the same very high frequency > magnetic field to be generated 90 degrees out of phase with the > displacement current passing through the capacitor to produce some force. > A very difficult experiment that *might* achieve a negligibly small effect! >
Re: [Vo]:Successful Mechanical OU
On 5/06/2018 1:51 PM, John Berry wrote: Actually, I have another one... Take a large loop apply a current, we see that each side of the loop experiences a pushing outwards. Now, we remove one side, from the loop and replace it with capacitor plates. No we energize a current through our broken loop and each side feels a force pushing away from the center. But, we only have 3 sides now, the 4th side is a displacement current, and while the displacement current creates a magnetic field, on what is the force placed? It would seem that where the circuit completed through the electric permitivity of space, it would be space that is the charge carrier, maybe it is virtual particles being polarized? The point is that while this circuit will only produce thrust for a moment before we need to reverse our connections, we can do so and the directions all reverse except the direction of thrust which is the same. This is interesting as if you can put a current, if space can be polarized, then it can also be thrust against! Indeed I also thought about this situation at great length a long time ago, and even built a device which might have worked. However at the time I did not have an RF generator so tried to drive it by exciting the circuit with sparking. I did not see any effect and doing some calculations suggested that any effect that may be obtained with reasonable componentry will be negligibly small. How do you get even a fraction of an amp to flow through a capacitor with large spacing between the plates!? Only by using very high frequencies! And then you need the same very high frequency magnetic field to be generated 90 degrees out of phase with the displacement current passing through the capacitor to produce some force. A very difficult experiment that *might* achieve a negligibly small effect!
Re: [Vo]:Successful Mechanical OU
And a 4th thought experiment, this time it's the CoE under attack. So, this requires only a thought experiment but we need some idea conditions to make the case perfect. The idea is that you have an extremely light object that is moving at relativistic speeds that greatly resists compression, we are also going to do this experiment in 1D space so we don't have to worry about things smashing out in other dimensions. While a few artificial considerations are applied, I do not believe it affects the apparent truth that this violates the CoE. So the idea is that you have this imponderable light material, made of perhaps just a train of electrons that have nowhere else to go moving at near light speed, and a light meter long. Suddenly, the front electron hits a barrier, but the fastest information, or a compression wave can move is as C, so an observer would see a shockwave moving at near light speed (at most) going one way and other moving more electrons into the collision at near the speed of light. So, imagine, we have some amount of time before these 2 waves collide, and until they do this electron spring will be further and further compressed, storing more and more energy related to basically the degree of resistance electrons have to compressing, which depends largely on how compressed they were originally.. And yet, when we look at the initial energy into the system, we see that the electrons mass is not being used to compress the springs, the relativistic light speed limit is, so this material could be made in theory arbitrarily light and therefore have very little energy invested in the momentum. The point is NOT if this thought experiment is reasonable, and we can agree all energy put in as momentum will also contribute at the other end, so a practical version does not need to be made in 1D space with an infinitly light and resistant to compressing material. The point is that if C limits the rate at which information can pass, then we can compress a spring not with inertial mass but with time delay! And there is no energy involved in that, it is all Free Energy, and the thought experiment is just made extreme to make the point (as always). The point is that just like finding a loopholes in regular laws, it is possible to find loopholes in the laws of physics as we under them anyway, once we do we know that the laws of physics are somehow broken or incomplete, maybe the loophole would work on reality, maybe it wouldn't, but either way we can with logic find such flaws. On Tue, Jun 5, 2018 at 5:51 PM, John Berry wrote: > Actually, I have another one... > > Take a large loop apply a current, we see that each side of the loop > experiences a pushing outwards. > > Now, we remove one side, from the loop and replace it with capacitor > plates. > > No we energize a current through our broken loop and each side feels a > force pushing away from the center. > But, we only have 3 sides now, the 4th side is a displacement current, and > while the displacement current creates a magnetic field, on what is the > force placed? > > It would seem that where the circuit completed through the electric > permitivity of space, it would be space that is the charge carrier, maybe > it is virtual particles being polarized? > > The point is that while this circuit will only produce thrust for a moment > before we need to reverse our connections, we can do so and the directions > all reverse except the direction of thrust which is the same. > > This is interesting as if you can put a current, if space can be > polarized, then it can also be thrust against! > > > > > On Tue, Jun 5, 2018 at 5:42 PM, John Berry wrote: > >> >> >> >> >> >> *On 5/06/2018 12:30 AM, John Berry wrote:John, there might be the odd >> exception.I can give you an example that seems to break the CoM and CoE, it >> isn't practical. Now there might be an explanation, MAYBE it produces a >> photos that explains the propulsive effects... But I doubt it.Now, the >> easiest way to explain (though there is a way this can work without >> switching and just use DC electromagnets or even permanent magnets to >> affect Inertial mass positively or negatively) this is if you have an >> electromagnet establish a field, a large fieldAnd then you have a second >> electromagnet turn on suddenly, and it is attracted or repelled.Then, >> before the magnetic field from the second electromagnet can affect the >> first electromagnet, you turn off the first electromagnet.Standard physics >> says that the momentary field from the second electromagnet will propagate >> outwards from it at light speed so that it passes completely through the >> first electromagnet and affects it to just the extent that it would have >> affected it if the field propagation was instantaneous.* >> >> But it cannot be instantaneous. >> If we could communicate instantaneously we could kill Special Relativity. >> >> The first electromagnet could have been on for a very long time with
Re: [Vo]:Successful Mechanical OU
Actually, I have another one... Take a large loop apply a current, we see that each side of the loop experiences a pushing outwards. Now, we remove one side, from the loop and replace it with capacitor plates. No we energize a current through our broken loop and each side feels a force pushing away from the center. But, we only have 3 sides now, the 4th side is a displacement current, and while the displacement current creates a magnetic field, on what is the force placed? It would seem that where the circuit completed through the electric permitivity of space, it would be space that is the charge carrier, maybe it is virtual particles being polarized? The point is that while this circuit will only produce thrust for a moment before we need to reverse our connections, we can do so and the directions all reverse except the direction of thrust which is the same. This is interesting as if you can put a current, if space can be polarized, then it can also be thrust against! On Tue, Jun 5, 2018 at 5:42 PM, John Berry wrote: > > > > > > *On 5/06/2018 12:30 AM, John Berry wrote:John, there might be the odd > exception.I can give you an example that seems to break the CoM and CoE, it > isn't practical. Now there might be an explanation, MAYBE it produces a > photos that explains the propulsive effects... But I doubt it.Now, the > easiest way to explain (though there is a way this can work without > switching and just use DC electromagnets or even permanent magnets to > affect Inertial mass positively or negatively) this is if you have an > electromagnet establish a field, a large fieldAnd then you have a second > electromagnet turn on suddenly, and it is attracted or repelled.Then, > before the magnetic field from the second electromagnet can affect the > first electromagnet, you turn off the first electromagnet.Standard physics > says that the momentary field from the second electromagnet will propagate > outwards from it at light speed so that it passes completely through the > first electromagnet and affects it to just the extent that it would have > affected it if the field propagation was instantaneous.* > > But it cannot be instantaneous. > If we could communicate instantaneously we could kill Special Relativity. > > The first electromagnet could have been on for a very long time with > nothing to react against. > We then activate the second electromagnet and it experiences a reactionary > force. > The first electromagnet is designed to turn of a fraction of an instant > before any force would kick in. > Therefore there is ZERO force on one electromagnet, but there is force on > the other. > And only if we can communicate from one electromagnet, back to the other > and back again in essentially zero time can this not be thee case! > > The second electromagnet has no impact on the first electromagnet as it is > unpowered when the field hits, it is magnetically inert at this point. > > > * So after a very short time, CoM is restored.* > > It is not restored because the first electromagnet was not an > electromagnet by the time the field got to it. > Admittedly the violation cannot continue without resetting the experiment, > but momentum has not been conserved, unless of course a photon is > considered to have been exchanged/emitted, but that has to be justifiable, > and I doubt it can be. > > > * I am confident that if you were to include the momentum of the field in > the calculation, then CoM would be continuously satisfied over all space. > (That is after all how physicists would work out the momentum of the field > - by *assuming* that the total must always be conserved!)* > > Only if you are implying that the field becomes separated from the > electromagnets and carries the momentum as a photon. If that is what you > think happens, this this need a far more careful examination. > > BTW, there is a patent on the concept... Not that that means much. > > *So now you have gained thrust from one electromagnet, but the other has > experienced no forces.* > > *As I say, a version without switching can be envisioned where one magnet, > or both are suddenly accelerated in the same direction so that one moves > deeper into the field of the other, and the other moves out of the field, > so one finds the attraction or repulsion between then increased, the other > finds it decreased as neither sees the "new" or current position for the > other magnet.* > > *By doing this you can create without and doubt thrust, break the CoM and > therefore the CoE...* > > *And the only way it could fail is if you prove that magnetic fields, > near-fields transfer forces and information INSTANTLY which Einstein would > consider a blow.* > > *This is not wrong, Unless as I said that a bit fat photon carries all > that momentum in the opposite direction.* > > *I personally cannot see where there would be a cost of energy though for > the photon to be coming from.* > > *There is something usually called "radiation
Re: [Vo]:Successful Mechanical OU
*On 5/06/2018 12:30 AM, John Berry wrote:John, there might be the odd exception.I can give you an example that seems to break the CoM and CoE, it isn't practical. Now there might be an explanation, MAYBE it produces a photos that explains the propulsive effects... But I doubt it.Now, the easiest way to explain (though there is a way this can work without switching and just use DC electromagnets or even permanent magnets to affect Inertial mass positively or negatively) this is if you have an electromagnet establish a field, a large fieldAnd then you have a second electromagnet turn on suddenly, and it is attracted or repelled.Then, before the magnetic field from the second electromagnet can affect the first electromagnet, you turn off the first electromagnet.Standard physics says that the momentary field from the second electromagnet will propagate outwards from it at light speed so that it passes completely through the first electromagnet and affects it to just the extent that it would have affected it if the field propagation was instantaneous.* But it cannot be instantaneous. If we could communicate instantaneously we could kill Special Relativity. The first electromagnet could have been on for a very long time with nothing to react against. We then activate the second electromagnet and it experiences a reactionary force. The first electromagnet is designed to turn of a fraction of an instant before any force would kick in. Therefore there is ZERO force on one electromagnet, but there is force on the other. And only if we can communicate from one electromagnet, back to the other and back again in essentially zero time can this not be thee case! The second electromagnet has no impact on the first electromagnet as it is unpowered when the field hits, it is magnetically inert at this point. * So after a very short time, CoM is restored.* It is not restored because the first electromagnet was not an electromagnet by the time the field got to it. Admittedly the violation cannot continue without resetting the experiment, but momentum has not been conserved, unless of course a photon is considered to have been exchanged/emitted, but that has to be justifiable, and I doubt it can be. * I am confident that if you were to include the momentum of the field in the calculation, then CoM would be continuously satisfied over all space. (That is after all how physicists would work out the momentum of the field - by *assuming* that the total must always be conserved!)* Only if you are implying that the field becomes separated from the electromagnets and carries the momentum as a photon. If that is what you think happens, this this need a far more careful examination. BTW, there is a patent on the concept... Not that that means much. *So now you have gained thrust from one electromagnet, but the other has experienced no forces.* *As I say, a version without switching can be envisioned where one magnet, or both are suddenly accelerated in the same direction so that one moves deeper into the field of the other, and the other moves out of the field, so one finds the attraction or repulsion between then increased, the other finds it decreased as neither sees the "new" or current position for the other magnet.* *By doing this you can create without and doubt thrust, break the CoM and therefore the CoE...* *And the only way it could fail is if you prove that magnetic fields, near-fields transfer forces and information INSTANTLY which Einstein would consider a blow.* *This is not wrong, Unless as I said that a bit fat photon carries all that momentum in the opposite direction.* *I personally cannot see where there would be a cost of energy though for the photon to be coming from.* *There is something usually called "radiation damping" which is the mechanical effect on moving charge that is the *reaction force* of suddenly accelerating or decelerating the charge. After this sudden acceleration, its effect then radiates outward at light speed and can finally cause acceleration of remote charges - which finally balance the CoM equations for solid matter (which were unbalanced while the radiation was in transit).* Sounds like a photons under a different name to me Well, I did say going in that if you think that enough EM energy is released in the relivant direction as to explain the forces, that I couldn't really easily make the case that it is, but I think most peoples knowledge of the momenta of ultra low frequency photons is sufficiently lacking that this makes it a challenging one to further debug. In which event, for fun I propose an alternative, take a Transformer with a donut core, put in DC, establish a magnetic field, then place negative charges around the donut and positive charges toward the center, then collapse the magnetic field. The inductive pulse will push negative charges in space, or on electrodes, around, but as we have more protons in the center, and more electrons around the
Re: [Vo]:Successful Mechanical OU
On 5/06/2018 4:32 AM, Vibrator ! wrote: LOL have i not just clearly delineated the terms of their equivalence? Allow me to put it more tangibly: - Apply a 9.81 N force vertically between two 1 kg masses, the moment both are dropped into freefall. - We observe a kind of inverted 'slinky drop' effect - the upper mass hovers stationary in mid-air, whilst the lower one plummets at 2 G. - We've thus input momentum to the system, by applying a force between two masses, but which has nonetheless only accelerated one of them. - Without the upper mass to push against, we couldn't've applied any further acceleration to the lower one, beyond that from gravity. - So the lower mass will reach a speed of 19.62 m/s in a one second drop time. - 1 kg @ 19.62 m/s = 19.62 kg-m/s. - Half this momentum came from gravity. - The other half came from the internally-applied 9.81 N force. - So we've definitely raised some 'reactionless momentum' here - with certain caveats of course. I don't think so. The earth has experienced an unbalanced attraction to 2 Kg masses in free-fall near its surface - so it will have accelerated upwards slightly to meet these masses (just as it accelerates upwards to meet the moon when the moon is overhead). - Now let's get rid of the lower mass, and replace it with an angular inertia, rotating about a fixed axis. - We can apply the 'downwards' end of the linear force to the rim, or else the axle of the rotor, such as via a ripcord or whatever. Forget about the mass of the 'actuator' for now, just consider the raw distributions of momentum from the applied forces. - If we choose an MoI of '1', then as before, the upper 1 kg mass will hover stationary, experiencing equal 9.81 m/s accelerations in each direction, up as down, whilst the rotor spins up at the rate of 9.81 kg-m^2-rad/sec. (I imagine you intended 19.62 kg-m^2-rad/sec^2 here?) - That MoI of '1' could be comprised of 1 kg at 1 meter radius... - ...or equally, 4 kg at 500 mm radius... - ...or 250 grams at 2 meter radius.. - Or indeed any arbitrary distribution of mass and radius within practical limits. Agreed but you haven't specified at what radius the ripcord is being applied to? The moment of inertia is one thing (and it seems you are trying to keep it constant), but the radius at which you apply the force (via a ripcord or whatever) to produce torque, and spin-up the wheel is a separate parameter that you haven't discussed? - However, since 'radians' are a function of diameter of the rotor, the actual angular momentum we measure IN those units is by definition speed-dependent (kg-m^2-rad per second). It's a relative measure - and a very useful one at that - but it also has an objective magnitude, a scalar quantity independent of its actual spatial dimensions! We have proven this, since changing the MoI whilst maintaining the internally-applied 9.81 N force will break this balancing act, and the 'suspended' 1 kg weight will instead rise or fall. If you change the moment of inertia of something that is already spinning then its spin-rate and stored energy changes. This is the well known effect that occurs when a spinning skater pulls in her arms. Her moment of inertia decreases which means that spin rate must increase (to keep angular momentum the same), and likewise the energy stored in the spin must increase (she supplied this energy by pulling her arms in against centrifugal force). Thus the equality of the magnitude of absolute inertia - independent of its time-dependent measurement dimensions - has been empirically proven. You've just disproven anyone who tries to tell you it's conceptually 'impossible' to convert, much less compare, between them. Sorry but I don't see your argument. I am not sure what you mean by "absolute" inertia? Are you speaking of inertia (=mass) or moment of inertia (=mass x radius^2) or maybe momentum (m v) or maybe angular momentum (m r^2 rad/s)? They are all very different quantities with different units and different dimensions and cannot be added or compared in magnitude. Now, if i'd just Googled that question, i'd've come to the same conclusion as you and everyone else. But having worked it out from first principles, i do not need to worry what anyone else thinks. Hypothesise, test, rinse and repeat. Whatever the result, it is what it is. That's the only kinda 'Googling' that really counts. The upshot of that equivalence, however... is an effective 'reactionless acceleration', with no change in GPE. We've applied gravity to cancel or invert the sign of our counter-momentum. There's actually a few different ways of doing this, but the most interesting ones are of course those that enable the accumulation of such momentum, thus allowing its constant energy cost of production to diverge from its effective value as a function of the accumulating V^2 multiplier, via the standard KE terms. Consider the energy
Re: [Vo]:Successful Mechanical OU
On 5/06/2018 2:40 AM, Vibrator ! wrote:
Your view of what is conserved and why is too simple, and essentially
incomplete.
All force interactions perform work against the vacuum activity manifesting
that force - the discrete, quantised energy exchanges between the respective
force carriers in question, traded in units of h-bar - essentially, 'ambient'
quantum momentum.
When we input mechanical energy to a such field, there is no number scribbled
down in a book somewhere - rather, it's an emergent calculation determined by
the application of the relevant F*d integrals being mediated at lightspeed -
ie, essentially instantaneously, as they pertain to the respective dimensions
of the given energy terms.
Thus if output and input energy terms are in different respective dimensions,
any equivalence between net energies as a function of changes in time and space
is dependent upon further conditions with regards to how each term scales in
the other's domain.
If both input and output energy terms are in the same fields and domains, then
their equality is a given. And yet, it would be a step too far to conclude
that the Joule we get back out was 'the same' Joule we put it. When we spend 1
J lifting a weight, so having performed work against gravity, there isn't a tab
somewhere saying "gravity owes Bob 1 J". The fact that we only get 1 J back
out from the drop is simply an incidental consequence of the invariant input vs
output conditions. But it's not manifestly 'the same' Joule you put in - just
the same amount of energy / work.
I agree with you. It is not manifestly the same joule. So depositing money in
the bank may be a better illustration (or pumping electrical power into the
electricity grid). I can deposit $1000 in one city in $20 bills and pull the
same amount out in another city in $50 bills. It is not manifestly the same
cash that I have taken back out, but the bank makes sure that the amounts
always balance! So Nature does the same job as the bank tellers and
accountants. Whenever you do the calculation correctly, after allowing for
incomings and outgoings, the overall energy balance sheet always balances
perfectly - which is almost the same as saying that gravity owes Bob 1 J!
You might wonder who the tellers and accountants are that work for mother
Nature. The simple answer is that they are Newton's equations. When applied
correctly the spreadsheet always ends up balanced because the equations
themselves are balanced. I believe that you can achieve an imbalance, but not
by operating in accord with Newton's equations. You have to do something a lot
more subtle and sneaky and discover an effect that has not been noticed and a
term that has not been included in the equations. And it is bound to be a
small effect (eg < 1% of energy being exchanged) or it would have been noticed
a long time ago.
With the right change in those determinant conditions, we can get more out, or
less. An under-unity, or over-unity result.
Consider the case for so-called 'non-dissipative' loss mechanisms, in which the
energy in question has NOT simply been radiated away to low-grade heat. I'm
talking about 'non-thermodynamic' losses, in the literal sense. For example:
- Due to Sv (entropy viscosity - the subject of Rutherford's first paper in
1886), a small NdFeB magnet will rapidly leap across a small airgap to latch
onto a lump of 'pig iron', in less time than is required for the iron's
subsequent induced magnetisation ('B', in Maxwell's terms) to reach its
corresponding threshold (Bmax, or even saturation density - Bmax - if its
coercivity is low enough).
So the iron's level of induced B, from the neo, continues increasing long after
the mechanical action's all over.
We could monitor this changing internal state, using a simple coil and audio
amplifier, tuning in to the so-called Barkhausen jumps, as progressively
harder-pinned domains succumb to the growing influence of their
lower-coercivity neighbors. After some time, the clicking noise abates, and
so we know the sample's at Bmax.
We now prise them apart again, however because B has risen, so has the
mechanical force and thus work involved in separating them.
Quite simply, due to the time-dependent change in force, which did not occur
instantaneously at lightspeed, the system is mechanically under-unity - it
outputs less energy during the inbound integral, than must be input during the
outbound integral over the same distance.
So we could input 2 J, but only get 1 J back out.
By my calculation you have got nothing out. You let the magnet fly and collide
into the pig-iron so that the 1 J you might have recovered from its kinetic
energy ended up as heat during the collision.
Following this the permanent magnet slowly magnetises the pig-iron. To the
extent that this is slow (due to magnetic viscosity) and occurs in jumps
(generating Barkhausen noise), this process is lossy and generates
Re: [Vo]:Successful Mechanical OU
On 5/06/2018 12:30 AM, John Berry wrote: John, there might be the odd exception. I can give you an example that seems to break the CoM and CoE, it isn't practical. Now there might be an explanation, MAYBE it produces a photos that explains the propulsive effects... But I doubt it. Now, the easiest way to explain (though there is a way this can work without switching and just use DC electromagnets or even permanent magnets to affect Inertial mass positively or negatively) this is if you have an electromagnet establish a field, a large field And then you have a second electromagnet turn on suddenly, and it is attracted or repelled. Then, before the magnetic field from the second electromagnet can affect the first electromagnet, you turn off the first electromagnet. Standard physics says that the momentary field from the second electromagnet will propagate outwards from it at light speed so that it passes completely through the first electromagnet and affects it to just the extent that it would have affected it if the field propagation was instantaneous. So after a very short time, CoM is restored. I am confident that if you were to include the momentum of the field in the calculation, then CoM would be continuously satisfied over all space. (That is after all how physicists would work out the momentum of the field - by *assuming* that the total must always be conserved!) So now you have gained thrust from one electromagnet, but the other has experienced no forces. As I say, a version without switching can be envisioned where one magnet, or both are suddenly accelerated in the same direction so that one moves deeper into the field of the other, and the other moves out of the field, so one finds the attraction or repulsion between then increased, the other finds it decreased as neither sees the "new" or current position for the other magnet. By doing this you can create without and doubt thrust, break the CoM and therefore the CoE... And the only way it could fail is if you prove that magnetic fields, near-fields transfer forces and information INSTANTLY which Einstein would consider a blow. This is not wrong, Unless as I said that a bit fat photon carries all that momentum in the opposite direction. I personally cannot see where there would be a cost of energy though for the photon to be coming from. There is something usually called "radiation damping" which is the mechanical effect on moving charge that is the *reaction force* of suddenly accelerating or decelerating the charge. After this sudden acceleration, its effect then radiates outward at light speed and can finally cause acceleration of remote charges - which finally balance the CoM equations for solid matter (which were unbalanced while the radiation was in transit).
Re: [Vo]:Successful Mechanical OU
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
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
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. - 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. - 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. - 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. Thus the equality of the magnitude of absolute inertia - independent of its time-dependent measurement dimensions - has been empirically proven. You've just disproven anyone who tries to tell you it's conceptually 'impossible' to convert, much less compare, between them. Now, if i'd just Googled that question, i'd've come to the same conclusion as you and everyone else. But having worked it out from first principles, i do not need to worry what anyone else thinks. Hypothesise, test, rinse and repeat. Whatever the result, it is what it is. That's the only kinda 'Googling' that really counts. The upshot of that equivalence, however... is an effective 'reactionless acceleration', with no change in GPE. We've applied gravity to cancel or invert the sign of our counter-momentum. There's actually a few different ways of doing this, but the most interesting ones are of course those that enable the accumulation of such momentum, thus allowing its constant energy cost of production to diverge from its effective value as a function of the accumulating V^2 multiplier, via the standard KE terms. Consider the energy cost of 1 kg-m/s of momentum, for a 1 kg mass: - per 1/2mV^2, at 1 m/s 1 kg has 1/2 a Joule However if we then wish to add exactly that same amount of momentum again - so raising its speed by a further 1 m/s, we find that we need to input 2 Joules. Four times as much energy, for the same rise in momentum. Thus the cost - and value - of accumulating momentum increases via the V^2 exponent, the more momentum and thus velocity we already have. Taking lightspeed as 299792458 m/s, 1 kg would require 44937758936840900 J to reach C. 1 m/s less than this is 299792457 m/s, at which speed we have 44937758637048400 J. Therefore while our 1 kg mass's first kg-m/s of momentum only cost 500 mJ, the final kg-m/s up to C costs a whacking 44937758936840900 - 44937758637048400 = 299792500 J. Incidentally, we might note that this KE value is precisely equal to the speed of light in m/s, minus exactly 42 (299792500 Joules - 299792458 m/s = 42). Eat your heart out Douglas Adams.. I digress; point is, it's a right rip-off innit? Velocity tax, basically. What if we could maintain that initial 500 mJ / kg-m/s or kg-m^2 in the angular case... all the way up to C? 299792458 * 1/2 = 149896229 J. That's how much energy it'd cost to get 1 kg up to lightspeed, using reactionless momentum. Subtracting that from the standard cost: 44937758936840900 - 149896229 = 44937758786944671 J. That's how much energy we'd save. Incidentally again, however, if we see how many times that cut-price ticket divides into the standard V^2 value:
RE: [Vo]:Successful Mechanical OU
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
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
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 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
Re: [Vo]:Successful Mechanical OU
@John
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.
With the right change in those determinant conditions, we can get more out,
or less. An under-unity, or over-unity result.
Consider the case for so-called 'non-dissipative' loss mechanisms, in which
the energy in question has NOT simply been radiated away to low-grade
heat. I'm talking about 'non-thermodynamic' losses, in the literal sense.
For example:
- Due to Sv (entropy viscosity - the subject of Rutherford's first paper
in 1886), a small NdFeB magnet will rapidly leap across a small airgap to
latch onto a lump of 'pig iron', in less time than is required for the
iron's subsequent induced magnetisation ('B', in Maxwell's terms) to reach
its corresponding threshold (Bmax, or even saturation density - Bmax - if
its coercivity is low enough).
So the iron's level of induced B, from the neo, continues increasing long
after the mechanical action's all over.
We could monitor this changing internal state, using a simple coil and
audio amplifier, tuning in to the so-called Barkhausen jumps, as
progressively harder-pinned domains succumb to the growing influence of
their lower-coercivity neighbors. After some time, the clicking noise
abates, and so we know the sample's at Bmax.
We now prise them apart again, however because B has risen, so has the
mechanical force and thus work involved in separating them.
Quite simply, due to the time-dependent change in force, which did not
occur instantaneously at lightspeed, the system is mechanically under-unity
- it outputs less energy during the inbound integral, than must be input
during the outbound integral over the same distance.
So we could input 2 J, but only get 1 J back out.
Yet this 'loss' has not been dissipated as heat - it's simply energy that
never existed, never came to be, in the first place. Energy that could've
been collected, had we constrained the neo's approach speed, to allow
induced B to keep up... but which wasn't, because we didn't.
Thus the extra Joule we had to input has performed more work against the
virtual-photon-spehere (being the EM mediator), than it in turn has output
back into the mechanical realm. Assuming ultimate conservation - as you
would seem to - we've raised the vacuum energy by 1 J, with a 50%
under-unity EM-mechanical interaction.
Yet we don't need such exotica as obscure magnetic effects to achieve this
feat... simply consider a moving mass, colliding inelastically with an
equal, static one:
- so we could have 1 kg flying into a static 1 kg
- or equally, a rotating 1 kg-m^2 angular inertia being instantly braked
against an identical static one
Since spontaneously doubling the amount of inertia that a given conserved
momentum is divided into accordingly halves its speed, we end up with half
the kinetic energy.
"Ah", but you say, "the collision converted the other half of the KE into
heat!"
But is that actually what happens? If we began with say 1 kg * 1 m/s
linear momentum, so half a Joule, which then inelastically scoops up
another, static 1 kg, we now have 1 kg-m/s divided into two 1 kg masses,
hence a net system velocity of 0.5 m/s, and 125 mJ on each, for a 250 mJ
net KE.
Notice that we've necessarily assumed full conservation of our velocity
component, simply sharing it evenly between the two masses, in order to
conserve net momentum.
Given that the original KE value of 500 mJ was a function of that conserved
velocity, and that the final KE of 2 * 125 mJ is also dependent upon the
equitable distribution
Re: [Vo]:Successful Mechanical OU
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
@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
y >>> 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 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
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 physics" then you can't have done it. You have > simply made a mistake. I suggest you find a friend who is good at physics > to check your equations for the term(s) which you must have neglected or > included in error. Even if the person does not understand what you tell > them, you can often discover the mistake yourself while trying to explain > it to someone else at a detailed enough level. > > If you had built something which you claimed clearly worked (like Bessler > did), then you could be right and you could have made an amazing > (re)discovery that would require all the basic physics text books to need > correcting with the NEW PHYSICS that your working model has demonstrated. > But if it is just maths and simulation applied to standard known physics, > then everybody who knows this stuff KNOWS that you must have made a > mistake. . . . Sorry to be the bearer of bad news. > > Consider an illustration that might help. Supposing you started with a > litre of water in a flask, and decided to pass it through some very > complicated transformation processes. So you might boil it to a vapour, > condense it in a fractional distillation column, run fractions through > filters of various sorts, freeze some and grind it to a paste, and so on, > ad nauseum. In the end, no matter what you did to it, you will not have > managed to increase or decrease the number of molecules of water through > any of these processes. The
Re: [Vo]:Successful Mechanical OU
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
On 1/06/2018 5:35 AM, Vibrator ! wrote: . . . The thing is, a real model is inherently suspect - defeating its ostensible purpose. Batteries and motors can be hidden, etc. If you make it out of clear perspex with the minimum steel parts like bearings, springs, etc then there is nowhere to hide batteries. . . . you've still no idea what the putative gain mechanism is. Since it requires new physics, this is unavoidable until the new physics mechanism that provides the gain can be guessed at. Now consider that you have the same thing in simulation - except now, the thing has its entire guts out. You can see the values of everything, in every field. Everything is independently metered, using standard formulas that can be manually checked by anyone. So you can independently calculate the input and output work integrals, from their respective dependent variables, which are also all clearly displayed, and confirm for yourself that everything is being presented accurately. You can immediately replicate the results on the back of an envelope, from first principles. Since all physics calculations and simulations are FOUNDED on conservation of energy, such simulations CANNOT produce "overunity". If they do seem to produce it then you know you have a BUG in your code and by checking "the input and output work integrals" you can pin down which formula you have entered incorrectly, by finding the exact process in which excess energy appears (or disappears). It is only when you get a perfect energy balance throughout (as well as CoM, etc) that you know your code is finally working. On 4/06/2018 1:03 AM, Vibrator ! wrote: . . . i've already done it. . . No New physics. Sorry, if there is "No New physics" then you can't have done it. You have simply made a mistake. I suggest you find a friend who is good at physics to check your equations for the term(s) which you must have neglected or included in error. Even if the person does not understand what you tell them, you can often discover the mistake yourself while trying to explain it to someone else at a detailed enough level. If you had built something which you claimed clearly worked (like Bessler did), then you could be right and you could have made an amazing (re)discovery that would require all the basic physics text books to need correcting with the NEW PHYSICS that your working model has demonstrated. But if it is just maths and simulation applied to standard known physics, then everybody who knows this stuff KNOWS that you must have made a mistake. . . . Sorry to be the bearer of bad news. Consider an illustration that might help. Supposing you started with a litre of water in a flask, and decided to pass it through some very complicated transformation processes. So you might boil it to a vapour, condense it in a fractional distillation column, run fractions through filters of various sorts, freeze some and grind it to a paste, and so on, ad nauseum. In the end, no matter what you did to it, you will not have managed to increase or decrease the number of molecules of water through any of these processes. The amount of water at the end would be just the same as what you started with - and almost all well educated people would refuse to believe otherwise. Without NEW CHEMISTRY you cannot ever get an overunity production of water molecules. Well the same is true of energy. You can transform it in far more ways than you can molecules, but through all these processes, the number of joules (just as the number of molecules) remains constant. Physicists know this and CANNOT believe otherwise. Unless you can propose some NEW PHYSICS to explain how the extra joules came to appear within the system, it is simply not possible to believe. All the physics equations that we have are based on the conservation of energy because we have never had a system in captivity to study that breaks this law.
RE: [Vo]:Successful Mechanical OU
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
@Mixent - Like i say, i'm insulting everyone's intelligence just by making the claim. If someone thinks they have OU, they're almost by definition wrong. They've made some crass mistake, or they're just plain delusional. Attention-seeking BS artists are rarer, but still common compared to genuine claims (who remembers 'Milo' from a few years back)? At least if i were claiming an EM anomaly, magnetic materials have multiple inter-reacting properties like coercivity, remanence, permeability and bleedin' entropy viscosity etc. etc. Complex non-linear interactions with perhaps some scope for surprise (or just genuine error). I'm just using basic mechanics though. Force, mass and motion. I'm even excluding gravity as a factor. So my 'elements' are really just inertia, and then velocity, acceleration.. time and space.. and that's about it. How could someone screw up so epically - or even entertain the notion of being right, or believed - working with such a simple system? The factors i'm claiming a miracle from aren't even chapter 1 of grade-school textbooks; we're talking the preface. The dictionary. Such absurdity is almost below the threshold of what could even be considered a coherent 'claim', bogus or otherwise. The 'not even wrong' contingent. It's not like it hinges on a question of measurement precision, statistics like detection counts or possible environmental interference. If there's an error, it's waaay upstream.. Assuming i've evidently gone off the deep end is probably about the right level of circumspect. I'm fully compos mentis, though, and like i say, i developed this discovery over a period of years, contemplating the relationship between CoM and CoE and the factors determining their interdependencies, reducing fundamentals into ever-finer elements, recombining and filtering and test, rinse/repeat. Using the limited possibilities to advantage - brute-forcing the solution, using CoE's dependence on N3 as a compass. The light at the end of the tunnel was always those testimonies of Leibniz, Wolff, Bernouli, 's Gravesande and Desaguliers and Landgrave Karl. There had to be a resolution, and that meant it had to be an eminently tractable problem. So in answer to your question; no. Nobody could be so gullible, and what kind of messed up 'sociology' experiment would that be anyway? I'm making the absolute nadir of preposterous claims - full-on, stark-staring tits-out mechanical OU - free, mechanical energy, from thin air, manifesting within an instant, with no possibility of error. Oh and it's also a warp-drive doomsday machine. And all of this depends upon CoM and CoE holding precisely as they're supposed to, with no new physics whatsoever, just the most basic building blocks; force, mass and motion. Honestly, when i first read Bessler's story i felt the same way - just unbelievable, on every level; that it happened, that it could've slipped through the net. Yet the only plausible alternative was that the WHOLE story had been fabricated - ie. including these 'unassailable' witness testimonies. As the founding fathers of CoE and CoM, there was no one more qualified to pronounce upon OU than Leibniz and 's Gravesande and Wolff et al.. a strikingly convenient plot device for any mischievous writer.. And yet, copies of their testimonies, and also their mutual correspondence, still survive - for instance Leibniz's letters to Newton. Forging ALL of this evidence would require some kind of impresario magnate of sinister chicanery, a Moriarty, a Blofeld.. in other words, trying to find alternative explanations just raises even further incredulities. Whatever the resolution, this had to be tackled head-on. I'm no whacko free-energy theorist, with the suppression and the UFO's and 9/11 Illuminati BS. I'm a long-time amateur hunter of symmetry breaks. That's how i try to kid myself i'm not just some dizzy woo fanatic anyway. Classical symmetry breaks, in either field, mechanical or EM, are my 'thing'. I first heard about Bessler from Grimer during the Steorn days, and had to bookmark it to come back to when that matter was settled. Whereas normally i only tackle claims that offer or imply some information or principle that can actually be analysed independently, the evidence in this case was exclusively circumstantial. The most august of witness testimonies, yet no actual science at all. Nothing objective to test. So the only options were either work it all out from 1st principles, and try to 'brute force' a solution, or just leave it well alone. Blind luck and futile 'over-balancing' schemes were going to be nothing but a waste of time and effort. So i committed to a full-on assault back in April 2013, setting myself the stupid target of a 1-year completion date - OU or bust by April '14. I figured that whatever kung fu i'd picked up working the Steorn case would give me the advantage to sail through. And it did, eventually - a Bessler wheel is basically 'Orbo',
RE: [Vo]:Successful Mechanical OU
If the prototype works, let’s see a You Tube. Or at least some good drawings.
Re: [Vo]:Successful Mechanical OU
>>>> 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
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
s 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
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 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
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
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 mailto:ahern_br...@msn.com>> 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<mailto:88.fr...@gmail.com>> Sent: Friday, June 1, 2018 5:33 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Successful Mechanical OU No, no, no. On 1 June 2018 at 21:15, Terry Blanton mailto:hohlr...@gmail.com>> wrote: Grimes, Damn autocorrect. On Fri, Jun 1, 2018, 4:12 PM Terry Blanton mailto:hohlr...@gmail.com>> wrote: Crimes? On Fri, Jun 1, 2018, 4:11 PM Terry Blanton mailto:hohlr...@gmail.com>> wrote: On Fri, Jun 1, 2018, 1:42 PM Vibrator ! mailto:mrvibrat...@gmail.com>> 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
..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
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
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 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?
Re: [Vo]:Successful Mechanical OU
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
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 mailto:hohlr...@gmail.com>> wrote: Grimes, Damn autocorrect. On Fri, Jun 1, 2018, 4:12 PM Terry Blanton mailto:hohlr...@gmail.com>> wrote: Crimes? On Fri, Jun 1, 2018, 4:11 PM Terry Blanton mailto:hohlr...@gmail.com>> wrote: On Fri, Jun 1, 2018, 1:42 PM Vibrator ! mailto:mrvibrat...@gmail.com>> 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
It looks like $4M spent over about 18 months with no data at all. Even if it worked, 30 kW is far too small. The payback period would be thousands of years! How could anyone fall for this scam? I'll bet the small unit in Brazil was rigged to produce an effect sufficient to separate an investor from his money. From: Nigel Dyer Sent: Saturday, June 2, 2018 3:52 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Successful Mechanical OU Its already been built and generating copious amounts of energy, or at least that is what they claimed it would do... https://nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Frarenergia.com.br%2F=02%7C01%7C%7Cf510c40212644a5820fa08d5c8c273d7%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C636635659842957503=PbQ1KYVyJ5LPcY9VREw5GO%2FHaSdCfrYLghj%2BKzLY4C8%3D=0 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 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?
Re: [Vo]:Successful Mechanical OU
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 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?
Re: [Vo]:Successful Mechanical OU
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
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
In reply to Vibrator !'s message of Fri, 1 Jun 2018 14:46:48 +0100: Hi, [snip] >@John - yes, the stray momenta can be easily self-cancelled. But if we go >the 'free-for-all' route, we're putting a lot of faith in everyone to 'do >the right thing' - or even to understand why they should. [snip] Just patent it as a dual unit with each half canceling the effect of the other, and nobody will realize that it can be split in two. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk local asymmetry = temporary success
Re: [Vo]:Successful Mechanical OU
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? >> >
Re: [Vo]:Successful Mechanical OU
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? >
Re: [Vo]:Successful Mechanical OU
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?
Re: [Vo]:Successful Mechanical OU
@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
@John - yes, the stray momenta can be easily self-cancelled. But if we go the 'free-for-all' route, we're putting a lot of faith in everyone to 'do the right thing' - or even to understand why they should. @Mixent - In the simulated test rigs, the center-of-momentum frame between the Earth and the rising and falling weight drops downwards by 1.4 meters per cycle; that is, when we push the weight up for the reset stroke, we necessarily impart equal opposite counter-momentum to Earth, but when it drops back down, it arrives back at its initial height with less momentum than was imparted on the way up. Any gravitational interaction is also necessarily an inertial interaction, and both are reciprocal - just as we're also lifting the Earth downwards away from the weight, to fall back up towards it, we're likewise imparting equal opposing momenta in each direction, which normally mutually cancel over a complete cycle. Looking at footage from the ISS etc., it does seem nuts to suppose a tiny inoffensive little 'gravity wheel' is going to have any significant effect on such a massive body. Yet momentum's conserved, period. The exploit is an 'effective' violation of Newton's 3rd; with the emphasis on that qualifier. It is, by definition, NOT a 'closed-system of interacting masses' - it is an 'ostensibly-closed' system, but of course has to be an open thermodynamic system to be OU. It turns out that mechanical energy (KE & PE) can be sourced from and sunk to the vacuum via the Higgs interaction that endows matter with mass and thus inertia, the latter property forming the 'bang' we get for our 1/2mV^2 bucks - it's what substantiates both momentum and KE, after all - whilst it ALSO turns out that momentum itself can likewise be sourced from and sunk to ANY applied force field (including the 'fictitious' ones). But the most ubiquitous and familiar of these is obviously gravity, and the spurious notion of 'free-energy gravity wheels' is already etched into us by default, like a hardware bug, that has to be programmed out - and even then, 99.99% of all such enthusiasts spend their entire lives dementedly committed to designing a 'perpetually over-balancing wheel', just totally incapable of grasping that closed-loop trajectories through static fields by definition yield zero net energy. Like i say, every proponent of absurd 'gravity wind' theories will crawl out of the woodwork 'vindicated' and on a mission. Large numbers of DIY builders will subscribe to these theories. Most of the current 'futile' contingent already do so. Such a device outputting maybe a few kilowatts will be earthing perhaps 10 kg-m/s of momentum per cycle, in a reciprocating rig (one up, one down) running at perhaps a few cps, that momentum - divided into Earth's mass - has nowhere else to go (unless perchance there's an identical rig on the opposite side of the globe). It can't dissipate (negligible exotic effects like Casimir-force braking etc. notwithstanding). It's conserved, and accumulates. This rise in momentum is unprecedented and never occurs in nature (an effective first law violation). The last time this exploit was used was 300 years ago... and guess what happened? Johann Bessler's longest and most powerful wheel demonstration took place at Castle Weissenstein, beginning on the 12th of November 1717, and running continuously until the 4th of January 1718. By all accounts it was an unequivocal success, running for a month longer than originally planned, with no discernable loss of performance over those 54 days. On the night of December the 25th, however – whilst this test was in progress - a great storm surge, unprecedented in magnitude before or since, descended upon this same geographic area, killing many thousands, with devastating loss of property, livestock and agriculture. (Google "1717 Christmas flood".) Two months later, on the night of 25th or 26th of February, a second storm surge hit the same area. It can't escape notice that this double-whammy would seem consistent with a 'sloshing' of the atmosphere and oceans in response to the initiation, duration and cessation of a slight, but equally-unprecedented, net acceleration being applied to the planet during that test: Planet accelerates down, fluids move up, rebound and head back down; planet stops accelerating, fluids race back down, rebound and head back up.. to wit, they 'slosh'. Again, the net force being applied to Earth by an energy gain cycle is 'downwards' in relation to wherever the system is located on the planet. One might also expect some degree of geological effects, that could be attributed to any effective radial motion of the planet's solid inner core in relation to the liquid outer core, hence sending pressure waves up to the surface, aligned along the axis of acceleration. This same point applies to the equilibrium state of the planet's thermal dynamo in relation to the lunar tidal lock. Opposite Germany on the globe is New
RE: [Vo]:Successful Mechanical OU
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
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 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
Re: [Vo]:Successful Mechanical OU
Could you not make a design, a mirror design that cancels out the effects? On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 3:01 PM, Vibrator ! wrote: > 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
Re: [Vo]:Successful Mechanical OU
Vibrator, now you have described a little better, I still implore you to put money aside. I have been studying this field for over 20 years and only sunk money into it. But what you offer could send man to the stars and stop us from damaging the planet. But as soon as money gets in the way, things go bad, so many inventions have been lost to a combo of inventors seeing dollar signs (however deserved) and corporations buying off inventors and shelving, or killing off inventors, it happens. But if you release it publicly, and it changes the world, it is still possible you might be able to make some money fro it, the rights to the story, the movie, the book alone... But what you need to do is disclose it in a clear, convincing and straight-forward a way possible. And when you are doing something that is "impossible", you really have to make it compelling. The best way by far IMO is for you to build your machine and try to make it 3D printable, then give away the 3D printing plans to people for a proof of concept model. And sell improved 3D printer plans for upgraded models that are maybe useful and not just a desktop toy. This is by far the most powerful way to get your idea out there as anyone with a suitable 3D printer can just press print and see if it works! I have tried to convey a very very simple proof for breaking the conservation of momentum and it seems to go over peoples heads, I honestly don't know why. John On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 1:59 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, 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
Re: [Vo]:Successful Mechanical OU
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, 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
Re: [Vo]:Successful Mechanical OU
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, 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 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
Re: [Vo]:Successful Mechanical OU
@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 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
Re: [Vo]:Successful Mechanical OU
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 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? >>> >>> >> >
Re: [Vo]:Successful Mechanical OU
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 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? >>> >> >> >
Re: [Vo]:Successful Mechanical OU
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 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? >> > >
Re: [Vo]:Successful Mechanical OU
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 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? >
Re: [Vo]:Successful Mechanical OU
..re. models - Bessler himself of course built numerous ones, each more impressive than the last. Their performances were validated by the most qualified scientists in the world - the very same people who's worked established the laws of CoM and CoR themselves - Christian Wolff, s' Gravesande, Leibniz etc. Leibniz simply advised building even bigger, yet-more impressive wheels, that could accelerate in either direction, and run without loss of performance for weeks on end. Bessler did so. Still no buyers. Everyone knows 'perpetual motion' is a fool's errand. And if it looks anything like a 'gravity wheel', forget about it - the very nadir of pathological science. The same insurmountable skepticism befalls any attempt to seek academic assistance - "sure", you suppose, "just take what you have along to a local uni.." - and Bob's your uncle, right? So here's the thing about that - the reality is, i'm in London, and so the 'physics place' - where all the proper physics-talking dudes are - would be UCL. And just look at what they're doing there - condensed matter, cosmology etc.. So how do i get THEIR interest with my pathetic classical mechanics 'findings'? You don't think they're getting crank emails like this all the time? You think i could just wander onto campus, head up to a professor's office and expect some kind of Goodwill Hunting moment? Besides, you'd be lucky to get a moment of their attention if you were their fully paid-up student, these days. Today, UK uni's are notoriously ruthless businesses. The Educating Rita days are long gone. FWIW I've already tried crank-emailing the head of UCL physics, the head of Cambridge, the Secretary for Energy, Business and the Environment... so who should i crank-email my preposterous claims to next? Tell you what, YOU arrange the appointment for me, and i promise to go at a moment's notice...? Clock's ticking, i'm wasting time... but any first course of action you can think of, i've probably already tried.. hence why i'm appealing here for better ideas.. Build an impossibly-good mousetrap, and you can't expect the world to come beating a path to your door. As for just posting a link here to a small ZIP file on GoogleDrive, doesn't that compromise any potential IP claim? Not that i want to monopolise it or anything so sinister - a tiny fraction of a percentage would obviously set me up for life - but there's so much more at stake here: - Everything else is now obsolete. So LENR, but moreso, Hinckley Point C and a 3rd runway at Heathrow and everyone everywhere's transport and energy policy for the next few decades and trillions in lost investments and basically just massive economic disruption all round.. - You cannot have mechanical OU without an effective violation of Newton's 3rd law - here i'm empirically demonstrating both, in a direct causal relationship. Nothing about the exploit has anything to do with gravity, and any applied force can be used, however the simplest, easiest way is to apply gravity. This applies a net momentum to Earth on every cycle. If there's a good kind of pollution, this is not it. It CAN be done safely - for instance mounting two 'Bessler Wheels' opposite one another upon the inside walls of a horizontally-rotating drum, so substituting centrifugal 'G-force' in place of gravity, with their net radial momenta cancelling out, and so insulating Earth from harm, at least via classical mechanical means (though God knows what effect this evidently quantum-classical process is doing to the foundations). Still, that's a bit more complicated, and most private builders aren't going to be able to grasp why they shouldn't just use gravity instead. Worse, they'll gravitate towards crackpot 'gravity wind' theorists, every one of which will believe their madcap pet theories are now perfectly validated - it's free, clean, carbon-neutral, OBVIOUSLY what nature intended, right? It'll proliferate like wildfire, there'll be no getting the genie back in the bottle, and any attempt to do so will by definition be enacting every 'free energy suppression' conspiracy theorist's wet dream. Besides, it's illegal under UK law to disseminate material you know is likely to be economically disruptive - they'll use anti-terror laws for anything and everything these days - so i have a first obligation to my government, of whom i'm a subject, not a citizen, and of course no way in hell of ever getting in touch with them via an email addy, website or impromptu visit.. I could try making an appointment to see my local MP, but can you imagine how that'll go? (Hint: my local MP's a former sociology professor). Exactly. So to recap: - The deal is, buy a free energy machine, get a free warp drive. These effects CAN be disentangled, but by default they come as a pair. Fast'n'dirty builds applying inadvertent linear or angular forces to Earth will proliferate, and be almost impossible to police. So cheap, off-the-shelf but
Re: [Vo]:Successful Mechanical OU
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
English translation https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=de=ru=en=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.trinitas.ru%2Frus%2Fdoc%2F0231%2F004a%2F02311041.htm On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 4:34 PM, Axil Axil wrote: > http://www.trinitas.ru/rus/doc/0231/004a/02311041.htm > > 1. Analysis of microscopic traces of MHER from bodies of revolution. > > Experiments with bodies of revolution were carried out on a special > installation. The installation consisted of a collectorless high-speed > motor (up to 50,000 revolutions per minute) mounted on the table top, > engine power supply unit and remote control engine. On the axis of the > engine were mounted bodies of rotation of various materials, made in the > form of cones with a diameter of 20 mm and a height of 20 mm (photo 4). > > A photo 4. *Rotational bodies of various materials* . > > To ensure the safety of work around the engines with the bodies of > rotation, a protective casing is mounted, inside which, along the wall of > the casing (perpendicular to the bases of the cones) and above it > (perpendicular to the axis of rotation), photodetectors packed in opaque > bags were placed. > > A series of experiments was carried out for the exposure of photodetectors > with the following rotation bodies: graphite, aluminum, titanium, copper, > bismuth, zirconium, iron, cadmium, lead. At the same time, light > materials (graphite, aluminum, titanium) rotated at speeds of about 40,000 > rpm, heavy ones - at least 15,000 rpm. > > Exposure time for all bodies of rotation was 360 +/- 20 seconds. Temperature > at measurement: 25 0 С +/- 5 0 С. Comparative analysis was performed by > comparing microdamages at different areas of photodetectors: > > - in the plane of the base of the rotating cones (about 35 mm from the > bottom of the photodetector); > > - at different heights from the plane of the base of the cones; > > - on the upper photodetector located perpendicular to the axis of rotation > of the cones. > > > Spiral traces. > > On all photodetectors located perpendicular to the base of cones of bodies > of rotation, there are macroobjects in the form of rings, semirings and > spirals (hyperbolic and logarithmic spirals), which are located on the > entire surface of the negatives. The greatest concentration of objects is > observed in the central (vertically) parts of the negatives - about 2.5 - > 7.5 cm from the bottom. On photodetectors located perpendicular to the > axis of rotation, there were no special differences from the control > samples. In Fig. 5, for example, the spirals selected by the operator, > recorded by a photo detector near the body of rotation from the iron, are > shown. > > > Photo 5. *Spiral-shaped* *objects on the photodetector, exposed near the > body of rotation of iron (about 7 cm from the bottom, an increase of 64x)* > > A clear pattern of the distribution of spiraling objects, applicable to > all bodies of rotation, was not revealed, because the distribution of > objects over the surface of negatives is not uniform, and on films with a > low emulsion concentration (light films), it is practically impossible to > consider objects (for example, films with a copper rotation body - Cu). > > To make the quantitative analysis of spiral traces it was not possible for > the following reasons: > >- high labor intensity and subjective dependence of the identification >of spiraling traces on the quality of training and health of the operator; >- the nature and mechanisms of the appearance of spiral trails are >unknown, so we can not yet determine the parameters by which the analysis >should be performed; >- the quality of photographs strongly depends on the quality of the >developer, the film and the modes of manifestation, and therefore varies >from batch to batch. > > Table 1 describes the qualitative characteristics of the detected objects > on photodetectors located near different rotation bodies: > > > See more in the referenced document... > > > On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 4:23 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
http://www.trinitas.ru/rus/doc/0231/004a/02311041.htm 1. Analysis of microscopic traces of MHER from bodies of revolution. Experiments with bodies of revolution were carried out on a special installation. The installation consisted of a collectorless high-speed motor (up to 50,000 revolutions per minute) mounted on the table top, engine power supply unit and remote control engine. On the axis of the engine were mounted bodies of rotation of various materials, made in the form of cones with a diameter of 20 mm and a height of 20 mm (photo 4). A photo 4. *Rotational bodies of various materials* . To ensure the safety of work around the engines with the bodies of rotation, a protective casing is mounted, inside which, along the wall of the casing (perpendicular to the bases of the cones) and above it (perpendicular to the axis of rotation), photodetectors packed in opaque bags were placed. A series of experiments was carried out for the exposure of photodetectors with the following rotation bodies: graphite, aluminum, titanium, copper, bismuth, zirconium, iron, cadmium, lead. At the same time, light materials (graphite, aluminum, titanium) rotated at speeds of about 40,000 rpm, heavy ones - at least 15,000 rpm. Exposure time for all bodies of rotation was 360 +/- 20 seconds. Temperature at measurement: 25 0 С +/- 5 0 С. Comparative analysis was performed by comparing microdamages at different areas of photodetectors: - in the plane of the base of the rotating cones (about 35 mm from the bottom of the photodetector); - at different heights from the plane of the base of the cones; - on the upper photodetector located perpendicular to the axis of rotation of the cones. Spiral traces. On all photodetectors located perpendicular to the base of cones of bodies of rotation, there are macroobjects in the form of rings, semirings and spirals (hyperbolic and logarithmic spirals), which are located on the entire surface of the negatives. The greatest concentration of objects is observed in the central (vertically) parts of the negatives - about 2.5 - 7.5 cm from the bottom. On photodetectors located perpendicular to the axis of rotation, there were no special differences from the control samples. In Fig. 5, for example, the spirals selected by the operator, recorded by a photo detector near the body of rotation from the iron, are shown. Photo 5. *Spiral-shaped* *objects on the photodetector, exposed near the body of rotation of iron (about 7 cm from the bottom, an increase of 64x)* A clear pattern of the distribution of spiraling objects, applicable to all bodies of rotation, was not revealed, because the distribution of objects over the surface of negatives is not uniform, and on films with a low emulsion concentration (light films), it is practically impossible to consider objects (for example, films with a copper rotation body - Cu). To make the quantitative analysis of spiral traces it was not possible for the following reasons: - high labor intensity and subjective dependence of the identification of spiraling traces on the quality of training and health of the operator; - the nature and mechanisms of the appearance of spiral trails are unknown, so we can not yet determine the parameters by which the analysis should be performed; - the quality of photographs strongly depends on the quality of the developer, the film and the modes of manifestation, and therefore varies from batch to batch. Table 1 describes the qualitative characteristics of the detected objects on photodetectors located near different rotation bodies: See more in the referenced document... On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 4:23 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
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
In reply to Vibrator !'s message of Thu, 31 May 2018 18:27:36 +0100: Hi, If you are not a troll, then put it on a web page, and post a link here. Also take your prototype and measuring equipment to your local university or college and demonstrate it to a physics Profor do you only have the sims? >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? Regards, Robin van Spaandonk local asymmetry = temporary success
