John, there might be the odd exception. I can give you an example that seems to break the CoM and CoE, it isn't practical. Now there might be an explanation, MAYBE it produces a photos that explains the propulsive effects... But I doubt it.
Now, the easiest way to explain (though there is a way this can work without switching and just use DC electromagnets or even permanent magnets to affect Inertial mass positively or negatively) this is if you have an electromagnet establish a field, a large field And then you have a second electromagnet turn on suddenly, and it is attracted or repelled. Then, before the magnetic field from the second electromagnet can affect the first electromagnet, you turn off the first electromagnet. So now you have gained thrust from one electromagnet, but the other has experienced no forces. As I say, a version without switching can be envisioned where one magnet, or both are suddenly accelerated in the same direction so that one moves deeper into the field of the other, and the other moves out of the field, so one finds the attraction or repulsion between then increased, the other finds it decreased as neither sees the "new" or current position for the other magnet. By doing this you can create without and doubt thrust, break the CoM and therefore the CoE... And the only way it could fail is if you prove that magnetic fields, near-fields transfer forces and information INSTANTLY which Einstein would consider a blow. This is not wrong, Unless as I said that a bit fat photon carries all that momentum in the opposite direction. I personally cannot see where there would be a cost of energy though for the photon to be coming from. On Tue, Jun 5, 2018 at 3:37 AM, John Shop <quack...@outlook.com> wrote: > On 1/06/2018 5:35 AM, Vibrator ! wrote: > > . . . > The thing is, a real model is inherently suspect - defeating its > ostensible purpose. Batteries and motors can be hidden, etc. > > If you make it out of clear perspex with the minimum steel parts like > bearings, springs, etc then there is nowhere to hide batteries. > > . . . you've still no idea what the putative gain mechanism is. > > Since it requires new physics, this is unavoidable until the new physics > mechanism that provides the gain can be guessed at. > > Now consider that you have the same thing in simulation - except now, the > thing has its entire guts out. You can see the values of everything, in > every field. Everything is independently metered, using standard formulas > that can be manually checked by anyone. So you can independently calculate > the input and output work integrals, from their respective dependent > variables, which are also all clearly displayed, and confirm for yourself > that everything is being presented accurately. You can immediately > replicate the results on the back of an envelope, from first principles. > > Since all physics calculations and simulations are FOUNDED on conservation > of energy, such simulations CANNOT produce "overunity". If they do seem to > produce it then you know you have a BUG in your code and by checking "the > input and output work integrals" you can pin down which formula you have > entered incorrectly, by finding the exact process in which excess energy > appears (or disappears). It is only when you get a perfect energy balance > throughout (as well as CoM, etc) that you know your code is finally working. > > On 4/06/2018 1:03 AM, Vibrator ! wrote: > > . . . i've already done it. . . No New physics. > > Sorry, if there is "No New physics" then you can't have done it. You have > simply made a mistake. I suggest you find a friend who is good at physics > to check your equations for the term(s) which you must have neglected or > included in error. Even if the person does not understand what you tell > them, you can often discover the mistake yourself while trying to explain > it to someone else at a detailed enough level. > > If you had built something which you claimed clearly worked (like Bessler > did), then you could be right and you could have made an amazing > (re)discovery that would require all the basic physics text books to need > correcting with the NEW PHYSICS that your working model has demonstrated. > But if it is just maths and simulation applied to standard known physics, > then everybody who knows this stuff KNOWS that you must have made a > mistake. . . . Sorry to be the bearer of bad news. > > Consider an illustration that might help. Supposing you started with a > litre of water in a flask, and decided to pass it through some very > complicated transformation processes. So you might boil it to a vapour, > condense it in a fractional distillation column, run fractions through > filters of various sorts, freeze some and grind it to a paste, and so on, > ad nauseum. In the end, no matter what you did to it, you will not have > managed to increase or decrease the number of molecules of water through > any of these processes. The amount of water at the end would be just the > same as what you started with - and almost all well educated people would > refuse to believe otherwise. Without NEW CHEMISTRY you cannot ever get an > overunity production of water molecules. > > Well the same is true of energy. You can transform it in far more ways > than you can molecules, but through all these processes, the number of > joules (just as the number of molecules) remains constant. Physicists know > this and CANNOT believe otherwise. Unless you can propose some NEW PHYSICS > to explain how the extra joules came to appear within the system, it is > simply not possible to believe. All the physics equations that we have are > based on the conservation of energy because we have never had a system in > captivity to study that breaks this law. >