Re: [Vo]:Successful Mechanical OU
Good to see you're still kicking. How many grand and great grands have you now? On Fri, Jun 1, 2018, 5:33 PM Frank Grimer <88.fr...@gmail.com> wrote: > No, no, no. > > On 1 June 2018 at 21:15, Terry Blanton wrote: > >> Grimes, Damn autocorrect. >> >> On Fri, Jun 1, 2018, 4:12 PM Terry Blanton wrote: >> >>> Crimes? >>> >>> On Fri, Jun 1, 2018, 4:11 PM Terry Blanton wrote: >>> On Fri, Jun 1, 2018, 1:42 PM Vibrator ! 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 * > > >
Re: [Vo]:Successful Mechanical OU
No, no, no. On 1 June 2018 at 21:15, Terry Blanton wrote: > Grimes, Damn autocorrect. > > On Fri, Jun 1, 2018, 4:12 PM Terry Blanton wrote: > >> Crimes? >> >> On Fri, Jun 1, 2018, 4:11 PM Terry Blanton wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Jun 1, 2018, 1:42 PM Vibrator ! 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 *
Re: [Vo]:Successful Mechanical OU
In reply to Vibrator !'s message of Fri, 1 Jun 2018 14:46:48 +0100: Hi, [snip] >@John - yes, the stray momenta can be easily self-cancelled. But if we go >the 'free-for-all' route, we're putting a lot of faith in everyone to 'do >the right thing' - or even to understand why they should. [snip] Just patent it as a dual unit with each half canceling the effect of the other, and nobody will realize that it can be split in two. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk local asymmetry = temporary success
Re: [Vo]:Successful Mechanical OU
Grimes, Damn autocorrect. On Fri, Jun 1, 2018, 4:12 PM Terry Blanton wrote: > Crimes? > > On Fri, Jun 1, 2018, 4:11 PM Terry Blanton wrote: > >> >> >> On Fri, Jun 1, 2018, 1:42 PM Vibrator ! 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? >> >
Re: [Vo]:Successful Mechanical OU
Crimes? On Fri, Jun 1, 2018, 4:11 PM Terry Blanton wrote: > > > On Fri, Jun 1, 2018, 1:42 PM Vibrator ! 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? >
Re: [Vo]:Successful Mechanical OU
On Fri, Jun 1, 2018, 1:42 PM Vibrator ! 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?
Re: [Vo]:Successful Mechanical OU
@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.. The effect i'm using is utterly pedestrian and unremarkable in every way, except for the net result. It really is just a matter of force, mass and motion, with nothing exotic or in any way controversial or edgy involved. Remember, back in the 1700's there were no roller bearings available to Bessler - his wheels were incredibly noisy and lossy, with the entire wheel and axle turning as one piece, on open, steel trunnion bearings secured with leather straps. Back then, "friction" referred collectively to any and all forces retarding motion, not just what we would today categorise as entropic losses. 'Engineering precision' basically amounted to anything that didn't tear itself apart immediately. You had fairly intricate clockwork mechanisms - Bessler himself dabbled as a clock/watch builder - and with reference to his exploit, mentioned that flywheels were "not to be sneered at", however fine measurements (by modern standards) were beyond his means - and besides, there's nothing delicate or subtle about the exploit - it's a real keep-yer-fingers-clear brute, not some fragile balancing act outputting precarious millijoules of 'anomalous' energy. Again, 37 J becomes 72 J in just one second, with 34 J free and clear.. bite-yer-arm off stuff, this. On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 2:34 PM, Chris Zell wrote: > I have wondered if the Aspden Effect could be a free energy effect. > There was an obscure Polish physics group that seemed to replicate it or > something very much like it. > > A gyroscope or rotating mass can have a memory effect, according to this. > You brake it and re-spin it up to the original rpms and find that it takes > far less energy to do so when compared with that which you used to get it > to that rpm level initially. Makes you wonder if one could simply > accelerate and deaccelerate while gathering net energy. > > I also wonder about the Morgan/Wallace experiments in that it was reported > that a lead rotor (20K + rpm) produced a field effect causing a similar > rotor 1/16" away to rotate..in the opposite direction! If so, as > opposite, is that sympathetic movement 'free energy'? > >
Re: [Vo]:Successful Mechanical OU
@John - yes, the stray momenta can be easily self-cancelled. But if we go the 'free-for-all' route, we're putting a lot of faith in everyone to 'do the right thing' - or even to understand why they should. @Mixent - In the simulated test rigs, the center-of-momentum frame between the Earth and the rising and falling weight drops downwards by 1.4 meters per cycle; that is, when we push the weight up for the reset stroke, we necessarily impart equal opposite counter-momentum to Earth, but when it drops back down, it arrives back at its initial height with less momentum than was imparted on the way up. Any gravitational interaction is also necessarily an inertial interaction, and both are reciprocal - just as we're also lifting the Earth downwards away from the weight, to fall back up towards it, we're likewise imparting equal opposing momenta in each direction, which normally mutually cancel over a complete cycle. Looking at footage from the ISS etc., it does seem nuts to suppose a tiny inoffensive little 'gravity wheel' is going to have any significant effect on such a massive body. Yet momentum's conserved, period. The exploit is an 'effective' violation of Newton's 3rd; with the emphasis on that qualifier. It is, by definition, NOT a 'closed-system of interacting masses' - it is an 'ostensibly-closed' system, but of course has to be an open thermodynamic system to be OU. It turns out that mechanical energy (KE & PE) can be sourced from and sunk to the vacuum via the Higgs interaction that endows matter with mass and thus inertia, the latter property forming the 'bang' we get for our 1/2mV^2 bucks - it's what substantiates both momentum and KE, after all - whilst it ALSO turns out that momentum itself can likewise be sourced from and sunk to ANY applied force field (including the 'fictitious' ones). But the most ubiquitous and familiar of these is obviously gravity, and the spurious notion of 'free-energy gravity wheels' is already etched into us by default, like a hardware bug, that has to be programmed out - and even then, 99.99% of all such enthusiasts spend their entire lives dementedly committed to designing a 'perpetually over-balancing wheel', just totally incapable of grasping that closed-loop trajectories through static fields by definition yield zero net energy. Like i say, every proponent of absurd 'gravity wind' theories will crawl out of the woodwork 'vindicated' and on a mission. Large numbers of DIY builders will subscribe to these theories. Most of the current 'futile' contingent already do so. Such a device outputting maybe a few kilowatts will be earthing perhaps 10 kg-m/s of momentum per cycle, in a reciprocating rig (one up, one down) running at perhaps a few cps, that momentum - divided into Earth's mass - has nowhere else to go (unless perchance there's an identical rig on the opposite side of the globe). It can't dissipate (negligible exotic effects like Casimir-force braking etc. notwithstanding). It's conserved, and accumulates. This rise in momentum is unprecedented and never occurs in nature (an effective first law violation). The last time this exploit was used was 300 years ago... and guess what happened? Johann Bessler's longest and most powerful wheel demonstration took place at Castle Weissenstein, beginning on the 12th of November 1717, and running continuously until the 4th of January 1718. By all accounts it was an unequivocal success, running for a month longer than originally planned, with no discernable loss of performance over those 54 days. On the night of December the 25th, however – whilst this test was in progress - a great storm surge, unprecedented in magnitude before or since, descended upon this same geographic area, killing many thousands, with devastating loss of property, livestock and agriculture. (Google "1717 Christmas flood".) Two months later, on the night of 25th or 26th of February, a second storm surge hit the same area. It can't escape notice that this double-whammy would seem consistent with a 'sloshing' of the atmosphere and oceans in response to the initiation, duration and cessation of a slight, but equally-unprecedented, net acceleration being applied to the planet during that test: Planet accelerates down, fluids move up, rebound and head back down; planet stops accelerating, fluids race back down, rebound and head back up.. to wit, they 'slosh'. Again, the net force being applied to Earth by an energy gain cycle is 'downwards' in relation to wherever the system is located on the planet. One might also expect some degree of geological effects, that could be attributed to any effective radial motion of the planet's solid inner core in relation to the liquid outer core, hence sending pressure waves up to the surface, aligned along the axis of acceleration. This same point applies to the equilibrium state of the planet's thermal dynamo in relation to the lunar tidal lock. Opposite Germany on the globe is New Zeal
RE: [Vo]:Successful Mechanical OU
I have wondered if the Aspden Effect could be a free energy effect. There was an obscure Polish physics group that seemed to replicate it or something very much like it. A gyroscope or rotating mass can have a memory effect, according to this. You brake it and re-spin it up to the original rpms and find that it takes far less energy to do so when compared with that which you used to get it to that rpm level initially. Makes you wonder if one could simply accelerate and deaccelerate while gathering net energy. I also wonder about the Morgan/Wallace experiments in that it was reported that a lead rotor (20K + rpm) produced a field effect causing a similar rotor 1/16" away to rotate..in the opposite direction! If so, as opposite, is that sympathetic movement 'free energy'?
