In reply to  Vibrator !'s message of Fri, 1 Jun 2018 04:01:20 +0100:

We humans use about 500 quad/yr of energy. At that rate it would take 5 trillion
years to use all the kinetic energy of the Earth going around the Sun.
Every movement on the surface of the planet imparts angular momentum to the
planet, most of which probably cancels out. The Earth is also constantly losing
angular momentum to the Moon (rotational about it's axis). It hardly makes any
difference. You don't see people worried about tapping tidal energy do you? I
seriously doubt your device would have a noticeable impact in your lifetime, or
that of anyone else now alive, even if everyone used it the "wrong" way. If,
over many lifetimes, the impact became noticeable, I'm sure by then we will have
found alternatives anyway.

>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?

Robin van Spaandonk

local asymmetry = temporary success

Reply via email to