@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 <aethe...@gmail.com> 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 <janap...@gmail.com> 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 <aethe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 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?

Reply via email to