@Mixent - Like i say, i'm insulting everyone's intelligence just by making
the claim.

If someone thinks they have OU, they're almost by definition wrong.
They've made some crass mistake, or they're just plain delusional.
Attention-seeking BS artists are rarer, but still common compared to
genuine claims (who remembers 'Milo' from a few years back)?

At least if i were claiming an EM anomaly, magnetic materials have multiple
inter-reacting properties like coercivity, remanence, permeability and
bleedin' entropy viscosity etc. etc.  Complex non-linear interactions with
perhaps some scope for surprise (or just genuine error).

I'm just using basic mechanics though.  Force, mass and motion.  I'm even
excluding gravity as a factor.  So my 'elements' are really just inertia,
and then velocity, acceleration.. time and space..  and that's about it.
How could someone screw up so epically - or even entertain the notion of
being right, or believed - working with such a simple system?  The factors
i'm claiming a miracle from aren't even chapter 1 of grade-school
textbooks; we're talking the preface.  The dictionary.  Such absurdity is
almost below the threshold of what could even be considered a coherent
'claim', bogus or otherwise.  The 'not even wrong' contingent.  It's not
like it hinges on a question of measurement precision, statistics like
detection counts or possible environmental interference.  If there's an
error, it's waaay upstream..

Assuming i've evidently gone off the deep end is probably about the right
level of circumspect.

I'm fully compos mentis, though, and like i say, i developed this discovery
over a period of years, contemplating the relationship between CoM and CoE
and the factors determining their interdependencies, reducing fundamentals
into ever-finer elements, recombining and filtering and test, rinse/repeat.
Using the limited possibilities to advantage - brute-forcing the solution,
using CoE's dependence on N3 as a compass.  The light at the end of the
tunnel was always those testimonies of Leibniz, Wolff, Bernouli, 's
Gravesande and Desaguliers and Landgrave Karl.  There had to be a
resolution, and that meant it had to be an eminently tractable problem.

So in answer to your question; no.  Nobody could be so gullible, and what
kind of messed up 'sociology' experiment would that be anyway?

I'm making the absolute nadir of preposterous claims - full-on,
stark-staring tits-out mechanical OU - free, mechanical energy, from thin
air, manifesting within an instant, with no possibility of error.  Oh and
it's also a warp-drive doomsday machine.  And all of this depends upon CoM
and CoE holding precisely as they're supposed to, with no new physics
whatsoever, just the most basic building blocks; force, mass and motion.

Honestly, when i first read Bessler's story i felt the same way - just
unbelievable, on every level; that it happened, that it could've slipped
through the net.  Yet the only plausible alternative was that the WHOLE
story had been fabricated - ie. including these 'unassailable' witness
testimonies.  As the founding fathers of CoE and CoM, there was no one more
qualified to pronounce upon OU than Leibniz and 's Gravesande and Wolff et
al..  a strikingly convenient plot device for any mischievous writer..  And
yet, copies of their testimonies, and also their mutual correspondence,
still survive - for instance Leibniz's letters to Newton.  Forging ALL of
this evidence would require some kind of impresario magnate of sinister
chicanery, a Moriarty, a Blofeld..  in other words, trying to find
alternative explanations just raises even further incredulities.   Whatever
the resolution, this had to be tackled head-on.

I'm no whacko free-energy theorist, with the suppression and the UFO's and
9/11 Illuminati BS.  I'm a long-time amateur hunter of symmetry breaks.
That's how i try to kid myself i'm not just some dizzy woo fanatic anyway.
Classical symmetry breaks, in either field, mechanical or EM, are my
'thing'.  I first heard about Bessler from Grimer during the Steorn days,
and had to bookmark it to come back to when that matter was settled.
Whereas normally i only tackle claims that offer or imply some information
or principle that can actually be analysed independently, the evidence in
this case was exclusively circumstantial.  The most august of witness
testimonies, yet no actual science at all.  Nothing objective to test.  So
the only options were either work it all out from 1st principles, and try
to 'brute force' a solution, or just leave it well alone.  Blind luck and
futile 'over-balancing' schemes were going to be nothing but a waste of
time and effort.

So i committed to a full-on assault back in April 2013, setting myself the
stupid target of a 1-year completion date - OU or bust by April '14.  I
figured that whatever kung fu i'd picked up working the Steorn case would
give me the advantage to sail through.  And it did, eventually - a Bessler
wheel is basically 'Orbo', sans magnets.  I had a hammer, and every problem
was a nail.  But alongside working all hours at my crappy paying-job, it
took another four years to zero in on the solution.

I picked up the keys to the mathematical solution a few years ago, then
reached a more compelling 'physical' (still fairly abstract) application of
the maths over autumn and Christmas last year, then put it all down for a
few months rest and perspective, before making the final assault over the
last few weeks.

What i have now is not the only solution, or only application of the
maths.  What IS fantastic about it however is the timescales it operates on
- if you simply take an assumption of a full, effective violation of
Newton's 3rd, and apply it in a basic inertial interaction (ie. a force
applied between two inertias) in order to accelerate the pair of them
together (and so resulting in an effective violation of N1), you actually
lose 3/4 of your input energy on the first 100% asymmetric interaction.
Input 1 Joule, end up with just 250 mJ remaining.  Perform a second
identical stroke however, and you only get 50% loss.  Incidentally, these
are 'non-dissipative' losses we're talking about; the system is
'under-unity', in the same manner a gain would be OU - this is simply the
result of the accelerated inertia sharing its momentum back with its
non-accelerated partner following the reactionless acceleration, in order
to bootstrap the net system into a net rise in momentum; since KE squares
with velocity, if we spontaneously double the inertia that a conserved
momentum is divided into (as by an inelastic collision with an equal,
static inertia) then we halve the velocity remaining, and twice the inertia
at half the velocity has 1/4 the KE.  So anyway, perform a 3rd identical
interaction, and now you end up with 75% efficiency, and 25% under-unity -
having spent 3 J, your pair of equal inertias now have 2.25 J of KE.
Perform a fourth such cycle, and we hit unity - we've spent 4 J, and we
have 4 J of KE...

..so guess what happens when we perform a fifth such interaction?  Bingo -
efficiency keeps rising by 25% per cycle throughout, in a never-ending
sequence.  So we hit 125% of unity at five cycles, 150% at six, 200% at
eight, 300% at twelve, 400% at sixteen etc. etc.

The only precondition there is that we can apply a force between two
inertias, which nonetheless only accelerates one of them.  Then we
inelastically collide them (as by a length of string being pulled taut),
equalising their velocity, and keep repeating that process, whilst
monitoring input / output efficiency (how much energy we've spent vs how
much we have).

Yet this process takes time.  Five full cycles to OU.  If you had, say, ten
such interactions per cycle then you could be OU within 180° of net system
rotation, yet Bessler's systems, by all accounts, gave the impression of
being almost instantly OU - accelerating straight up to ~56 RPM within a
few rotations!  The implication being that there had to be a quicker, more
seamless way to access this putative energy gradient.

In principle, you could 'prime' the system up to its 'unity threshold'  via
any conventional means of acceleration - since it would have the same
efficiency either way - and then perform the magical 'fifth' reactionless
acceleration as the first in the sequence, so basically using some PE to
cut out the first three 'under-unity' cycles.  Finicky to design that into
a mechanism, though.  There had to be an easier shortcut..

And that's the problem i've just cracked.  An effective N3 violation that
causes an instant and exponential excess of output energy over input energy.

Take a look at the 'final' image in Bessler's 'Machinen Tractate', MT
138-141, AKA 'the toys page':



..on the right side, items A and B denote a sequence of five asymmetric
torque or momentum distributions between clockwise and counter-clockwise
directions.  The scissorjack denotes inertia per se, and the hammer toys,
interactions with something linear, vs something that 'squares'.  The
upturned whistling top indicating some aspects of a rotating system, turned
on its head..  So this is not a clue for those seeking the 'magic' - it's
an IP claim intended for anyone else who's already found it - his way of
saying "I've been here before you!".  It demonstrates an understanding of
the dichotomy between momentum, and the potential to perform work, a la KE,
and their interdependence... and suggests Bessler had indeed solved the
'vis viva' dispute long before any of his contemporaries.  A denial that he
simply stumbled across OU by accident.  But also, an implication, in the
hammer toys and upturned spinning top, that there was an easier, quicker
way to access this special energy gradient marked by the number five.

Bessler had been taught hieroglyphs in the Kirschner school of thought -
pre-Rosetta stone, they were believed to be abstract and metaphorical - and
so he was trying to do the same thing as Carl Sagan with the Pioneer
plaques - inscribing his IP claim in a vocabulary beyond language, that
only fellow travelers would understand..

So anyway, TL;DR  - i simply followed both trails of breadcrumbs, coming at
the problem from each end to finally meet somewhere in the middle,
resolving the available physics with the available evidence, and realised
some years ago i was following a yellow brick road to an inexorable
conclusion, whilst almost everyone else was hacking at the thickets with a
blunt toothbrush.  I eliminated the dead ends, and carefully mapped out
whatever was left.

I wouldn't be claiming success if it wasn't real.  I wouldn't condemn
myself, or the Bessler case, to the humiliation of going off half-cocked.
This is a no-takesy backsies, adamant and unapologetic claim of mechanical
OU, certain and unconditional.

It would have to be one truly-committed sociology experiment, don't you

On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 8:51 AM, <mix...@bigpond.com> wrote:

> In reply to  Vibrator !'s message of Sun, 3 Jun 2018 18:03:12 +0100:
> Hi,
> If had to guess, I'd say a major in physics, and a minor in sociology. Is
> this
> for a sociology paper to see how gullible we are?
> [snip]
> Regards,
> Robin van Spaandonk
> local asymmetry = temporary success

Reply via email to