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
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
al
>>>> 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
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,
>
> 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
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
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.
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,
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
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
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
*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
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'
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
@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 -
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 -
@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
;>> 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 exciti
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
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
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
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,
@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
If the prototype works, let’s see a You Tube. Or at least some good drawings.
gt;>> 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
>>>> wa
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
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.
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 experiment
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]:Succ
day, 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...@
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
>&g
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, 20
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
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
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:
Cr
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
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
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
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 -
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]
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
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..
>>
>
>
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?
@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
@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
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
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
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
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,
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
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
@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
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:
>
>>
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"
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
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
..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,
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
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
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
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.
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
69 matches
Mail list logo
