Could you not make a design, a mirror design that cancels out the effects?
On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 3:01 PM, Vibrator ! <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 ! <[email protected]> >> 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> correction: Ideally film the construction >>>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 12:13 PM, John Berry <[email protected]> >>>>>> 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 ! <[email protected]> >>>>>>> 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? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
