I busted Rarenergia within a couple of days.  Went through the patent,
tested the proposed gain principle, found no variation in the force /
displacement integrals for either of the three loading conditions they
claimed asymmetries for - green positive bar, blue positive bar, yellow
neutral bar (in their terminology).  You get exactly the same line integral
for each, except the 'blue' one's inverted with respect to 'green' and

Rar was a plain and unimaginative attempt at a 'gravitational asymmetry' -
that is, essentially attempting to 'drop a weight when it's heavy, & lift
it when it's light'.  All such attempts are fucking retarded.  Closed-loop
trajectories through static fields, by definition, yield zero net energy.
I don't appreciate the comparison, but the fact you'd immediately jump to
it perfectly illustrates what we're up against in trying to roll this thing

This is NOT a putative 'gravity wheel'.  It has no dependence whatsoever
upon gravity.  It is mechanical over-unity.  As such, ANY force can be
applied for the input integral.

Why did Bessler use gravity?  Because the mythical 'gravity wheel' was what
he'd set his mind to - that was his whole focus, and he considered it among
the great unsolved mysteries of the world, along with the quest to square
the circle or translate hieroglyphics, one that he had personally resolved
to crack, as his lifetime's quest.  His whole raison d'etre.

After years of toil he finally worked out for himself that 'perpetually
overbalancing' wheels were a futile will-o'-the-wisp, and instead turned
his attentions to controlling and entraining momentum - the actual 'vis
viva' itself.   Having then succeeded in generating mechanical OU, what
more practical or accessible force to apply but gravity?  What more
confounding and miraculous an embodiment of his discovery, than what
appeared to be, for all intents and purposes, the fabled gravity wheel?

So while Bessler's wheels depended on vertical orientation and rotation,
and weights were heard falling and landing inside, any conclusion that they
were thus harnessing some kind of gravitational asymmetry is exclusively a
projection of the observer.  Indeed, given the intrinsic impossibility of a
GPE asymmetry, his success can only logically be interpreted as evidence of
SOME OTHER kind of symmetry break... such as a momentum asymmetry..  in
other words, an effective violation of Newton's 3rd law..  perhaps one
dependent upon gravity, or perhaps having no such dependence at all..

On Sat, Jun 2, 2018 at 8:52 PM, Nigel Dyer <l...@thedyers.org.uk> wrote:

> Its already been built and generating copious amounts of energy, or at
> least that is what they claimed it would do...
> http://rarenergia.com.br/
> Nigel
> On 31/05/2018 18:27, 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