..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 certified-clean generators are required to disincentivise
dangerous DIY builds.

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

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

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

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

A uni visit WOULD seem the best way to start.. i just don't see how i can
even reach that first hurdle, is all.  Nobody with their head screwed on
would or should have the slightest interest in my naive & impossible
invisible pink unicorn.  It is only AFTER trying everything else that i've
come to seek the wisdoms of the Vorts..

On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 10:35 PM, Vibrator ! <mrvibrat...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I've always been of the same opinion... up till now.
> The thing is, a real model is inherently suspect - defeating its
> ostensible purpose.  Batteries and motors can be hidden, etc.
> Suppose you surround your build with meters.  Meters for everything.
> Meters FOR the meters.  All cross-referencing perfectly...  except you're
> now in an even worse position - tangles of wires everywhere, and besides,
> everyone knows that everyone who ever appealed to a meter reading to
> support such a claim was either reading it wrong, or connecting it wrong,
> etc. etc.   Even if you trusted that my meters readings were reliable,
> they're still showing you an impossible result, and you've still no idea
> what the putative gain mechanism is.
> Now consider that you have the same thing in simulation - except now, the
> thing has its entire guts out.  You can see the values of everything, in
> every field.  Everything is independently metered, using standard formulas
> that can be manually checked by anyone.  So you can independently calculate
> the input and output work integrals, from their respective dependent
> variables, which are also all clearly displayed, and confirm for yourself
> that everything is being presented accurately.  You can immediately
> replicate the results on the back of an envelope, from first principles.
> So this strikes me as far more compelling evidence than any physical
> model.  It cannot be faked, and there can be no magic, mystery or gaps in
> communicating the gain principle.  It's immediate, unambiguous validation
> or dismissal, open and shut.
> The sims i've produced amount to full disclosure.  I've written up a brief
> not-too-rambling explanation to accompany them, but anyone au fait with
> basic mechanics only needs to see the sims, because they fully reveal the
> conclusive maths in progress...  input and output work calculated
> independently from each end, meeting in perfect agreement..  This has to be
> MUCH better than some dubious desktop model, surely..?
> I want to share, but sensibly, without digging myself into a trench..
> On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 9:23 PM, Chris Zell <chrisz...@wetmtv.com> 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.

Reply via email to