correction: Ideally film the construction On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 12:13 PM, John Berry <aethe...@gmail.com> 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 ! <mrvibrat...@gmail.com> 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&D - 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? >> > >
