@ John

"No" to any inference of mysterious energy fields permeating the masses,
but "absolutely" to the interplays and respective dimensions of

Consider a 1 kg weight, connected by a pulley cord to another mass that
slides horizontally without friction.  You may verify that the rate of
change of net system momentum is a constant, invariant of the ratio of
gravitating to non-gravitating mass - taking gravity as 9.81 N, it is
precisely thus 9.81 kg-m/s per kg of gravitating mass.

So, the amount of non-gravitating mass could be anything from zero to
infinity, but regardless of whether the gravitating mass is rising or
falling, the rate of change of net system momentum is always 9.81 p/s/kg
(where p=mV).

This is not, as one might suspect, a consequence of Galileo's principle -
that gravity defies F=mA - but rather a direct manifestation of it.
Same-same, no matter what force we apply.

Now switch out that linear-sliding mass for an angular inertia instead.  If
we measure its angular inertia in terms of kg/m^2, and given that moment of
inertia (MoI) is equal to mass times radius squared, we can select a mass
of 1 kg at 1 meter radius for an MoI of '1'.

If we measure its angular velocity in terms of radians per second, then we
have numerical parity with its linear equivalent for an equal distribution
of absolute momentum - that is, if we applied a linear to angular force
between them of 1 Newton for 1 second, we obtain 1 kg-m/s of linear
momentum, and also 1 kg-m^2-rad/sec of angular momentum.

Likewise, if we employ a 1 kg drop-weight to torque up that MoI, the system
gains 9.81 p of net momentum per second.

Since they're equal absolute magnitudes of inertia, albeit in their
respective dimensions, the net system velocity remains equally-distributed
between them.

Hence with 9.81 p of net system momentum, we have 4.905 p on each inertia -
1 kg dropping at 4.905 m/s, and an MoI of '1' rotating at 4.905 rad/s.

However, since the objective distance 1 radian corresponds to is dependent
upon the dimensions of the circle in question (it's a relative, not
absolute, quantity), this same point applies to the 'magnitudes' of angular
momentum we're measuring for any given angular velocity; so for instance if
we double the mass radius, then per mr^2 we quadruple the MoI, but also
halve the relative velocity compared to the linear value wherein inertia is
a fixed function of rest mass.  Hence, repeating the 1 second, 1 kg drop,
we'd again obtain 4.905 p on the weight, but '9.81' p on the MoI - for a
'net' total of '14.715' p... i'm using scare-quotes there to highlight my
point; the objective value of the absolute magnitudes of momentum and their
distribution remains 9.81 p/s for the net system, regardless of how the
angular component is represented.

This is a constant - a time-dependent symmetry.

There is likewise a corresponding symmetry to the respective displacements,
especially with regards to height.  Just as a given period of exposure to
an applied force is 'worth' a corresponding value of change-in-momentum, so
is a given change in height of the weight.

Usually, under all normal circumstances, these two values are identical.
Their parity is effectively enforced by the mere fact of mass constancy.
So for a given amount of gravitating mass, a given change in net system
momentum corresponds to both a given time period, and a given change in

What i've done is simply to accelerate the 'net system momentum' with
respect to one set of dimensions, ahead of the other - effectively shifting
one coordinate space relative to the other.  Within each domain, there is
the 'correct' amount of both energy and momentum...

So each in their own terms, we have the correct momentum and KE for the
height traversed, and also the correct momentum and KE for the exposure
time to the accelerating force.  However, these two sets of values are now

As such, we can now have a closed-loop trajectory that actually gains or
loses net momentum, to whatever the applied force field.

So yes, in short - relative acceleration deltas are a key component of the
exploit.  There's more to it, however..

..but if it's starting to sound bewilderingly complex, fear not - it's
disarmingly simple in application.  Seriously, if you thought you had the
measure of human stupidity, wait til you see how obvious the winning
mechanism really is..  It's really fiendishly simple, albeit no less of a
rabbit hole for it..  ;)

Incidentally, if you consider that time constancy is the main factor
enforcing unity transactions (so if mass is constant, and height is
constant, and gravity is also constant, then any such closed-loop
interaction must by definition yield zero net energy AND momentum), then
the instructions for violating CoM and CoE are implicit within their terms
of enforcement - input and output energies can only be unequal if their
terms lie in different respective dimensions; in short, you need a time
rate-of-change asymmetry, if there's to be any asymmetry at all.  So you're
looking to play an energy quantity that is in some way time-variant,
against one that is not.

This is also the solution to Steorn's passive magnetic 'Orbo' interaction
(as embodied by the Kinetron device) - an asymmetric rate of change of
increasing vs decreasing induced magnetisation, in relation to asymmetric
mechanical accelerations between inbound and outbound halves of the PE-KE
cycle.  Ditto for their electro-mechanical rigs - duty cycle and resulting
dissipative losses are a per-cycle time-dependent function of velocity,
whereas magnetic potential energy is usually not (Sv effects

Like Sean McCarthy said at the time, these systems are the ultimate
validation of Noether's theorem, not an exception or workaround.  Hence
there is no need for any contradiction with the standard applications of
CoM and CoE.  No further magic required.  OU depends upon CoM and CoE doing
exactly what they're supposed to, without fail, in both time and space..
but especially with regards to time.

On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 9:14 AM, John Berry <aethe...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Vibrator, there are a number of claims involving violation of CoM and CoE,
> and it involves an asymmetry in the rate a acceleration/deceleration.
> I wonder if that fits your description.
> Also sometimes this seems to include a influence or energy field exiting
> the mass.
> Is this maybe the case?
> On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 5:03 AM, Vibrator ! <mrvibrat...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Sorry if i've been unclear - i've already done it.  It's done.  No New
>> physics.  No magic.  No possibility of error.  Definitive, conclusive,
>> indisputable, unambiguous and unequivocal proof positive, it's in the can,
>> it's a wrap, a done-deal, a fait accompli, an actual physical gain, not an
>> 'implied' one; 37.8 Joules of gravity*mass*height transforms seamlessly
>> into 72.1 Joules of mechanical energy in one second, leaving 34.3 Joules
>> free and clear after the weight is re-lifted and the mechanism fully reset
>> to its initial conditions, thus an efficiency of 90% OU, or 190% of unity,
>> together with a corresponding 1.4 meter drop in the zero momentum frame.
>> Buy a free-energy machine, get a free warp drive.  It's here.  Now.  Done
>> and dusted.  Ready for deployment.  Trivially easy to replicate, and could
>> probably be validated on the back of an envelope.
>> There's nothing theoretical or speculative about it, both CoM and CoE
>> remain inviolable - the results can only be interpreted as evidence of a
>> quantum-classical system rather than creation ex nihilo (evidence of such
>> being epistemologically impossible), and arguably we all know classical
>> systems are inherently quantum-classical anyway;  it is but a question of
>> thresholds.
>> It's just a perfectly normal free-energy warp drive using bog-standard
>> mechanics - force, mass and motion - entirely dependent upon the
>> immutability of CoM and CoE at every step in the process.
>> Like i say, there's temporal symmetry to net changes in momentum, and a
>> spatial one.  Usually they're hard-coupled due to mass constancy, however
>> this is an epiphenomenal symmetry, not a truly fundamental one, and it can
>> be broken, and i HAVE broken it, and this spatiotemporal momentum asymmetry
>> results in a gain in mechanical energy explicitly caused by the
>> bog-standard V^2 multiplier in 1/2mV^2 and 1/2Lw^2 - the normal mechanical
>> energy terms.
>> Starting to think i should maybe bind that explanation to a macro key...
>> The only new aspect is that traditionally, the 'net thermodynamic energy'
>> of the universe only takes into account all possible displacements against
>> all fundamental force fields (the net work done from bang to bust) -
>> whereas the vacuum energy.. well, just Google "vacuum catastrophe".
>> The interaction i'm demonstrating pulls momentum from whatever the
>> applied force field (so gravity, EM, inertial forces (ie. 'G-force'),
>> springs or whatever), and mechanical energy (KE or PE or some combination
>> of each) from the Higgs field - not by my or Bessler's design, but the
>> universe's..  so if there's any 'mistake', you're taking it up with the
>> wrong person..
>> On Sun, Jun 3, 2018 at 5:20 PM, H LV <hveeder...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Perhaps it is possible to devise a mathematical/conceptual framework for
>>> mechanics in which Newtonian mechanics would exist as a special case but
>>> the alternative framework would allow for the construction of a perpetual
>>> motion machine . It would be like going back in time to the 17th century
>>> and proposing an alternative science of motion to Newton's mechanics
>>> without relying on any physics that came after Newton such as EM theory or
>>> quantum mechanics. It would require the formulation of some new
>>> concept/principle that doesn't currently exist anywhere in physics.
>>> On Sun, Jun 3, 2018 at 11:28 AM, Vibrator ! <mrvibrat...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> ..right, just spammed it to Tajmar.  Who could possibly be more
>>>> qualified or interested?  Plus he's a Kraut, so there's a good chance he's
>>>> already aware of the Bessler case..
>>>> Was really hoping to give UK academia first dibs, but they're
>>>> apparently far too sensible..
>>>> On Sun, Jun 3, 2018 at 4:05 PM, Vibrator ! <mrvibrat...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> I've only started this thread in the attempt to get independent data.
>>>>> It's been just over a week since achieving certainty.  None of the
>>>>> uni's are responding to my crank emails, for some strange reason.
>>>>> Perhaps you could help refine my template?
>>>>> "Dear proper physics-talking dudes, please find enclosed evidence of
>>>>> my free-energy warp-drive doomsday machine, what i've made by waving two
>>>>> masses around, type stuff.  Note all the weird squiggly lines in the 
>>>>> plots,
>>>>> and the nice pastel colour-scheme.  Do i win £5?"
>>>>> The DoE didn't bite, UCL physics won't bite, i tried spamming it to
>>>>> Imp. College physics last night, no reply yet and not really expecting
>>>>> one...
>>>>> So i've tried asking here, and the best suggestions so far are
>>>>> "measure its efficiency as a function of CoP" (for heat pumps?) and making
>>>>> a 3D-printable version of a device that's almost certain to destroy us if
>>>>> not deployed in a sensible manner.
>>>>> I haven't come here to impress or gloat, i'm asking for advice on how
>>>>> to proceed.   Who to approach for independent corroboration?  It's just
>>>>> rock-bottom basics - force, mass and motion.  Everyone think's the 
>>>>> barrel's
>>>>> long scraped dry, and all the uni's are focused on particle physics, dark
>>>>> matter and laser spectroscopy etc.
>>>>> At least LENR is zeitgeist crank physics, posing new and exciting
>>>>> impossibilities; classical mechanics OTOH - mechanical OU? - seriously?  I
>>>>> seriously think i've found an elephant in the custard of classical
>>>>> physics?  Ha..!  Good luck with that eh..
>>>>> Who should i show it to, who can help move things forwards in some
>>>>> way?   A volunteer, a nomination, any reliable person or group anywhere?
>>>>> On Sun, Jun 3, 2018 at 1:25 PM, Brian Ahern <ahern_br...@msn.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> Here we have all the elements of a fine scam. He is taking the Rossi
>>>>>> play book, page 1.
>>>>>>    1. no independent data
>>>>>>    2. no independent experiments
>>>>>>    3. claim earlier experiments were wildly positive
>>>>>>    4.
>>>>>> ------------------------------
>>>>>> *From:* Frank Grimer <88.fr...@gmail.com>
>>>>>> *Sent:* Friday, June 1, 2018 5:33 PM
>>>>>> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
>>>>>> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Successful Mechanical OU
>>>>>> No, no, no.
>>>>>> On 1 June 2018 at 21:15, Terry Blanton <hohlr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Grimes, Damn autocorrect.
>>>>>> On Fri, Jun 1, 2018, 4:12 PM Terry Blanton <hohlr...@gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> Crimes?
>>>>>> On Fri, Jun 1, 2018, 4:11 PM Terry Blanton <hohlr...@gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, Jun 1, 2018, 1:42 PM Vibrator ! <mrvibrat...@gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> @Chris - Weird, reminiscent of some kind of frame-dragging effect, or
>>>>>> 'remanence' of the Higgs field?  Sounds pretty whack either way, but hey
>>>>>> who am i to talk..
>>>>>> Frank Crimes, is that you inside the Vibrator?
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> *quae est ista quae progreditur quasi aurora **consurgens *
>>>>>> *pulchra ut luna electa ut sol terribilis ut acies ordinata *

Reply via email to