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 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 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