Re: [Vo]:Successful Mechanical OU
Actually, I have another one... Take a large loop apply a current, we see that each side of the loop experiences a pushing outwards. Now, we remove one side, from the loop and replace it with capacitor plates. No we energize a current through our broken loop and each side feels a force pushing away from the center. But, we only have 3 sides now, the 4th side is a displacement current, and while the displacement current creates a magnetic field, on what is the force placed? It would seem that where the circuit completed through the electric permitivity of space, it would be space that is the charge carrier, maybe it is virtual particles being polarized? The point is that while this circuit will only produce thrust for a moment before we need to reverse our connections, we can do so and the directions all reverse except the direction of thrust which is the same. This is interesting as if you can put a current, if space can be polarized, then it can also be thrust against! On Tue, Jun 5, 2018 at 5:42 PM, John Berry wrote: > > > > > > *On 5/06/2018 12:30 AM, John Berry wrote: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 fieldAnd 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.Standard physics > says that the momentary field from the second electromagnet will propagate > outwards from it at light speed so that it passes completely through the > first electromagnet and affects it to just the extent that it would have > affected it if the field propagation was instantaneous.* > > But it cannot be instantaneous. > If we could communicate instantaneously we could kill Special Relativity. > > The first electromagnet could have been on for a very long time with > nothing to react against. > We then activate the second electromagnet and it experiences a reactionary > force. > The first electromagnet is designed to turn of a fraction of an instant > before any force would kick in. > Therefore there is ZERO force on one electromagnet, but there is force on > the other. > And only if we can communicate from one electromagnet, back to the other > and back again in essentially zero time can this not be thee case! > > The second electromagnet has no impact on the first electromagnet as it is > unpowered when the field hits, it is magnetically inert at this point. > > > * So after a very short time, CoM is restored.* > > It is not restored because the first electromagnet was not an > electromagnet by the time the field got to it. > Admittedly the violation cannot continue without resetting the experiment, > but momentum has not been conserved, unless of course a photon is > considered to have been exchanged/emitted, but that has to be justifiable, > and I doubt it can be. > > > * I am confident that if you were to include the momentum of the field in > the calculation, then CoM would be continuously satisfied over all space. > (That is after all how physicists would work out the momentum of the field > - by *assuming* that the total must always be conserved!)* > > Only if you are implying that the field becomes separated from the > electromagnets and carries the momentum as a photon. If that is what you > think happens, this this need a far more careful examination. > > BTW, there is a patent on the concept... Not that that means much. > > *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.* > > *There is something usually called "radiation
Re: [Vo]:Successful Mechanical OU
*On 5/06/2018 12:30 AM, John Berry wrote: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 fieldAnd 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.Standard physics says that the momentary field from the second electromagnet will propagate outwards from it at light speed so that it passes completely through the first electromagnet and affects it to just the extent that it would have affected it if the field propagation was instantaneous.* But it cannot be instantaneous. If we could communicate instantaneously we could kill Special Relativity. The first electromagnet could have been on for a very long time with nothing to react against. We then activate the second electromagnet and it experiences a reactionary force. The first electromagnet is designed to turn of a fraction of an instant before any force would kick in. Therefore there is ZERO force on one electromagnet, but there is force on the other. And only if we can communicate from one electromagnet, back to the other and back again in essentially zero time can this not be thee case! The second electromagnet has no impact on the first electromagnet as it is unpowered when the field hits, it is magnetically inert at this point. * So after a very short time, CoM is restored.* It is not restored because the first electromagnet was not an electromagnet by the time the field got to it. Admittedly the violation cannot continue without resetting the experiment, but momentum has not been conserved, unless of course a photon is considered to have been exchanged/emitted, but that has to be justifiable, and I doubt it can be. * I am confident that if you were to include the momentum of the field in the calculation, then CoM would be continuously satisfied over all space. (That is after all how physicists would work out the momentum of the field - by *assuming* that the total must always be conserved!)* Only if you are implying that the field becomes separated from the electromagnets and carries the momentum as a photon. If that is what you think happens, this this need a far more careful examination. BTW, there is a patent on the concept... Not that that means much. *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.* *There is something usually called "radiation damping" which is the mechanical effect on moving charge that is the *reaction force* of suddenly accelerating or decelerating the charge. After this sudden acceleration, its effect then radiates outward at light speed and can finally cause acceleration of remote charges - which finally balance the CoM equations for solid matter (which were unbalanced while the radiation was in transit).* Sounds like a photons under a different name to me Well, I did say going in that if you think that enough EM energy is released in the relivant direction as to explain the forces, that I couldn't really easily make the case that it is, but I think most peoples knowledge of the momenta of ultra low frequency photons is sufficiently lacking that this makes it a challenging one to further debug. In which event, for fun I propose an alternative, take a Transformer with a donut core, put in DC, establish a magnetic field, then place negative charges around the donut and positive charges toward the center, then collapse the magnetic field. The inductive pulse will push negative charges in space, or on electrodes, around, but as we have more protons in the center, and more electrons around the
Re: [Vo]:Successful Mechanical OU
On 5/06/2018 4:32 AM, Vibrator ! wrote: LOL have i not just clearly delineated the terms of their equivalence? Allow me to put it more tangibly: - Apply a 9.81 N force vertically between two 1 kg masses, the moment both are dropped into freefall. - We observe a kind of inverted 'slinky drop' effect - the upper mass hovers stationary in mid-air, whilst the lower one plummets at 2 G. - We've thus input momentum to the system, by applying a force between two masses, but which has nonetheless only accelerated one of them. - Without the upper mass to push against, we couldn't've applied any further acceleration to the lower one, beyond that from gravity. - So the lower mass will reach a speed of 19.62 m/s in a one second drop time. - 1 kg @ 19.62 m/s = 19.62 kg-m/s. - Half this momentum came from gravity. - The other half came from the internally-applied 9.81 N force. - So we've definitely raised some 'reactionless momentum' here - with certain caveats of course. I don't think so. The earth has experienced an unbalanced attraction to 2 Kg masses in free-fall near its surface - so it will have accelerated upwards slightly to meet these masses (just as it accelerates upwards to meet the moon when the moon is overhead). - Now let's get rid of the lower mass, and replace it with an angular inertia, rotating about a fixed axis. - We can apply the 'downwards' end of the linear force to the rim, or else the axle of the rotor, such as via a ripcord or whatever. Forget about the mass of the 'actuator' for now, just consider the raw distributions of momentum from the applied forces. - If we choose an MoI of '1', then as before, the upper 1 kg mass will hover stationary, experiencing equal 9.81 m/s accelerations in each direction, up as down, whilst the rotor spins up at the rate of 9.81 kg-m^2-rad/sec. (I imagine you intended 19.62 kg-m^2-rad/sec^2 here?) - That MoI of '1' could be comprised of 1 kg at 1 meter radius... - ...or equally, 4 kg at 500 mm radius... - ...or 250 grams at 2 meter radius.. - Or indeed any arbitrary distribution of mass and radius within practical limits. Agreed but you haven't specified at what radius the ripcord is being applied to? The moment of inertia is one thing (and it seems you are trying to keep it constant), but the radius at which you apply the force (via a ripcord or whatever) to produce torque, and spin-up the wheel is a separate parameter that you haven't discussed? - However, since 'radians' are a function of diameter of the rotor, the actual angular momentum we measure IN those units is by definition speed-dependent (kg-m^2-rad per second). It's a relative measure - and a very useful one at that - but it also has an objective magnitude, a scalar quantity independent of its actual spatial dimensions! We have proven this, since changing the MoI whilst maintaining the internally-applied 9.81 N force will break this balancing act, and the 'suspended' 1 kg weight will instead rise or fall. If you change the moment of inertia of something that is already spinning then its spin-rate and stored energy changes. This is the well known effect that occurs when a spinning skater pulls in her arms. Her moment of inertia decreases which means that spin rate must increase (to keep angular momentum the same), and likewise the energy stored in the spin must increase (she supplied this energy by pulling her arms in against centrifugal force). Thus the equality of the magnitude of absolute inertia - independent of its time-dependent measurement dimensions - has been empirically proven. You've just disproven anyone who tries to tell you it's conceptually 'impossible' to convert, much less compare, between them. Sorry but I don't see your argument. I am not sure what you mean by "absolute" inertia? Are you speaking of inertia (=mass) or moment of inertia (=mass x radius^2) or maybe momentum (m v) or maybe angular momentum (m r^2 rad/s)? They are all very different quantities with different units and different dimensions and cannot be added or compared in magnitude. Now, if i'd just Googled that question, i'd've come to the same conclusion as you and everyone else. But having worked it out from first principles, i do not need to worry what anyone else thinks. Hypothesise, test, rinse and repeat. Whatever the result, it is what it is. That's the only kinda 'Googling' that really counts. The upshot of that equivalence, however... is an effective 'reactionless acceleration', with no change in GPE. We've applied gravity to cancel or invert the sign of our counter-momentum. There's actually a few different ways of doing this, but the most interesting ones are of course those that enable the accumulation of such momentum, thus allowing its constant energy cost of production to diverge from its effective value as a function of the accumulating V^2 multiplier, via the standard KE terms. Consider the energy
Re: [Vo]:Successful Mechanical OU
On 5/06/2018 2:40 AM, Vibrator ! wrote:
Your view of what is conserved and why is too simple, and essentially
incomplete.
All force interactions perform work against the vacuum activity manifesting
that force - the discrete, quantised energy exchanges between the respective
force carriers in question, traded in units of h-bar - essentially, 'ambient'
quantum momentum.
When we input mechanical energy to a such field, there is no number scribbled
down in a book somewhere - rather, it's an emergent calculation determined by
the application of the relevant F*d integrals being mediated at lightspeed -
ie, essentially instantaneously, as they pertain to the respective dimensions
of the given energy terms.
Thus if output and input energy terms are in different respective dimensions,
any equivalence between net energies as a function of changes in time and space
is dependent upon further conditions with regards to how each term scales in
the other's domain.
If both input and output energy terms are in the same fields and domains, then
their equality is a given. And yet, it would be a step too far to conclude
that the Joule we get back out was 'the same' Joule we put it. When we spend 1
J lifting a weight, so having performed work against gravity, there isn't a tab
somewhere saying "gravity owes Bob 1 J". The fact that we only get 1 J back
out from the drop is simply an incidental consequence of the invariant input vs
output conditions. But it's not manifestly 'the same' Joule you put in - just
the same amount of energy / work.
I agree with you. It is not manifestly the same joule. So depositing money in
the bank may be a better illustration (or pumping electrical power into the
electricity grid). I can deposit $1000 in one city in $20 bills and pull the
same amount out in another city in $50 bills. It is not manifestly the same
cash that I have taken back out, but the bank makes sure that the amounts
always balance! So Nature does the same job as the bank tellers and
accountants. Whenever you do the calculation correctly, after allowing for
incomings and outgoings, the overall energy balance sheet always balances
perfectly - which is almost the same as saying that gravity owes Bob 1 J!
You might wonder who the tellers and accountants are that work for mother
Nature. The simple answer is that they are Newton's equations. When applied
correctly the spreadsheet always ends up balanced because the equations
themselves are balanced. I believe that you can achieve an imbalance, but not
by operating in accord with Newton's equations. You have to do something a lot
more subtle and sneaky and discover an effect that has not been noticed and a
term that has not been included in the equations. And it is bound to be a
small effect (eg < 1% of energy being exchanged) or it would have been noticed
a long time ago.
With the right change in those determinant conditions, we can get more out, or
less. An under-unity, or over-unity result.
Consider the case for so-called 'non-dissipative' loss mechanisms, in which the
energy in question has NOT simply been radiated away to low-grade heat. I'm
talking about 'non-thermodynamic' losses, in the literal sense. For example:
- Due to Sv (entropy viscosity - the subject of Rutherford's first paper in
1886), a small NdFeB magnet will rapidly leap across a small airgap to latch
onto a lump of 'pig iron', in less time than is required for the iron's
subsequent induced magnetisation ('B', in Maxwell's terms) to reach its
corresponding threshold (Bmax, or even saturation density - Bmax - if its
coercivity is low enough).
So the iron's level of induced B, from the neo, continues increasing long after
the mechanical action's all over.
We could monitor this changing internal state, using a simple coil and audio
amplifier, tuning in to the so-called Barkhausen jumps, as progressively
harder-pinned domains succumb to the growing influence of their
lower-coercivity neighbors. After some time, the clicking noise abates, and
so we know the sample's at Bmax.
We now prise them apart again, however because B has risen, so has the
mechanical force and thus work involved in separating them.
Quite simply, due to the time-dependent change in force, which did not occur
instantaneously at lightspeed, the system is mechanically under-unity - it
outputs less energy during the inbound integral, than must be input during the
outbound integral over the same distance.
So we could input 2 J, but only get 1 J back out.
By my calculation you have got nothing out. You let the magnet fly and collide
into the pig-iron so that the 1 J you might have recovered from its kinetic
energy ended up as heat during the collision.
Following this the permanent magnet slowly magnetises the pig-iron. To the
extent that this is slow (due to magnetic viscosity) and occurs in jumps
(generating Barkhausen noise), this process is lossy and generates
Re: [Vo]:Successful Mechanical OU
On 5/06/2018 12:30 AM, John Berry wrote: 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. Standard physics says that the momentary field from the second electromagnet will propagate outwards from it at light speed so that it passes completely through the first electromagnet and affects it to just the extent that it would have affected it if the field propagation was instantaneous. So after a very short time, CoM is restored. I am confident that if you were to include the momentum of the field in the calculation, then CoM would be continuously satisfied over all space. (That is after all how physicists would work out the momentum of the field - by *assuming* that the total must always be conserved!) 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. There is something usually called "radiation damping" which is the mechanical effect on moving charge that is the *reaction force* of suddenly accelerating or decelerating the charge. After this sudden acceleration, its effect then radiates outward at light speed and can finally cause acceleration of remote charges - which finally balance the CoM equations for solid matter (which were unbalanced while the radiation was in transit).
Re: [Vo]:Successful Mechanical OU
eek 'touch wood'. Jinx. On Tue, Jun 5, 2018 at 12:04 AM, Vibrator ! wrote: > Agreed. A great equaliser. Burst bubbles all round. Brexit for everyone! > > As for fame or fortune, not interested in the former but i currently live > on about 8K so a pot to piss in would be nice. Still, that's no reason to > bury it like Bessler did. And we all benefit from the results, so long as > they're applied responsibly. If i ain't gotta spend income on fuel or > energy, and maybe also if the housing bubble bursts, 8kpa could be plenty. > Everyone else's negative equity will have to be written off, reset time for > the global economy, and we'll all be able to retire in quaint log cabins > and live comfortably off-grid. And there'll be bluebirds, swooping across > saphire skies, as people of all nations and creeds join ha- eek dribbling > again. But basically with any luck we hopefully won't destroy ourselves, > tough wood. > > Like i say, i've tried to contact various universities, gonna give Dresden > another day or so to respond - IF one of 'em picks it up then it won't hurt > to give academia a bit of a head-start.. otherwise you'll be looking at it > by the w/e. > > If anyone has any better ideas in the meantime, do pipe up.. > > On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 9:23 PM, Chris Zell wrote: > >> If this thing is real, give up trying to get fame or fortune out of it. >> >> >> >> Just mail copies of how to build it to various people who are likely to >> put it together – before you get mysteriously stopped somehow. >> >> Destroying the elite is a worthy goal of a lifetime. >> > >
Re: [Vo]:Successful Mechanical OU
Agreed. A great equaliser. Burst bubbles all round. Brexit for everyone! As for fame or fortune, not interested in the former but i currently live on about 8K so a pot to piss in would be nice. Still, that's no reason to bury it like Bessler did. And we all benefit from the results, so long as they're applied responsibly. If i ain't gotta spend income on fuel or energy, and maybe also if the housing bubble bursts, 8kpa could be plenty. Everyone else's negative equity will have to be written off, reset time for the global economy, and we'll all be able to retire in quaint log cabins and live comfortably off-grid. And there'll be bluebirds, swooping across saphire skies, as people of all nations and creeds join ha- eek dribbling again. But basically with any luck we hopefully won't destroy ourselves, tough wood. Like i say, i've tried to contact various universities, gonna give Dresden another day or so to respond - IF one of 'em picks it up then it won't hurt to give academia a bit of a head-start.. otherwise you'll be looking at it by the w/e. If anyone has any better ideas in the meantime, do pipe up.. On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 9:23 PM, Chris Zell wrote: > If this thing is real, give up trying to get fame or fortune out of it. > > > > Just mail copies of how to build it to various people who are likely to > put it together – before you get mysteriously stopped somehow. > > Destroying the elite is a worthy goal of a lifetime. >
Re: [Vo]:Successful Mechanical OU
LOL have i not just clearly delineated the terms of their equivalence? Allow me to put it more tangibly: - Apply a 9.81 N force vertically between two 1 kg masses, the moment both are dropped into freefall. - We observe a kind of inverted 'slinky drop' effect - the upper mass hovers stationary in mid-air, whilst the lower one plummets at 2 G. - We've thus input momentum to the system, by applying a force between two masses, but which has nonetheless only accelerated one of them. - Without the upper mass to push against, we couldn't've applied any further acceleration to the lower one, beyond that from gravity. - So the lower mass will reach a speed of 19.62 m/s in a one second drop time. - 1 kg @ 19.62 m/s = 19.62 kg-m/s. - Half this momentum came from gravity. - The other half came from the internally-applied 9.81 N force. - So we've definitely raised some 'reactionless momentum' here - with certain caveats of course. - Now let's get rid of the lower mass, and replace it with an angular inertia, rotating about a fixed axis. - We can apply the 'downwards' end of the linear force to the rim, or else the axle of the rotor, such as via a ripcord or whatever. Forget about the mass of the 'actuator' for now, just consider the raw distributions of momentum from the applied forces. - If we choose an MoI of '1', then as before, the upper 1 kg mass will hover stationary, experiencing equal 9.81 m/s accelerations in each direction, up as down, whilst the rotor spins up at the rate of 9.81 kg-m^2-rad/sec. - That MoI of '1' could be comprised of 1 kg at 1 meter radius... - ...or equally, 4 kg at 500 mm radius... - ...or 250 grams at 2 meter radius.. - Or indeed any arbitrary distribution of mass and radius within practical limits. - However, since 'radians' are a function of diameter of the rotor, the actual angular momentum we measure IN those units is by definition speed-dependent (kg-m^2-rad per second). It's a relative measure - and a very useful one at that - but it also has an objective magnitude, a scalar quantity independent of its actual spatial dimensions! We have proven this, since changing the MoI whilst maintaining the internally-applied 9.81 N force will break this balancing act, and the 'suspended' 1 kg weight will instead rise or fall. Thus the equality of the magnitude of absolute inertia - independent of its time-dependent measurement dimensions - has been empirically proven. You've just disproven anyone who tries to tell you it's conceptually 'impossible' to convert, much less compare, between them. Now, if i'd just Googled that question, i'd've come to the same conclusion as you and everyone else. But having worked it out from first principles, i do not need to worry what anyone else thinks. Hypothesise, test, rinse and repeat. Whatever the result, it is what it is. That's the only kinda 'Googling' that really counts. The upshot of that equivalence, however... is an effective 'reactionless acceleration', with no change in GPE. We've applied gravity to cancel or invert the sign of our counter-momentum. There's actually a few different ways of doing this, but the most interesting ones are of course those that enable the accumulation of such momentum, thus allowing its constant energy cost of production to diverge from its effective value as a function of the accumulating V^2 multiplier, via the standard KE terms. Consider the energy cost of 1 kg-m/s of momentum, for a 1 kg mass: - per 1/2mV^2, at 1 m/s 1 kg has 1/2 a Joule However if we then wish to add exactly that same amount of momentum again - so raising its speed by a further 1 m/s, we find that we need to input 2 Joules. Four times as much energy, for the same rise in momentum. Thus the cost - and value - of accumulating momentum increases via the V^2 exponent, the more momentum and thus velocity we already have. Taking lightspeed as 299792458 m/s, 1 kg would require 44937758936840900 J to reach C. 1 m/s less than this is 299792457 m/s, at which speed we have 44937758637048400 J. Therefore while our 1 kg mass's first kg-m/s of momentum only cost 500 mJ, the final kg-m/s up to C costs a whacking 44937758936840900 - 44937758637048400 = 299792500 J. Incidentally, we might note that this KE value is precisely equal to the speed of light in m/s, minus exactly 42 (299792500 Joules - 299792458 m/s = 42). Eat your heart out Douglas Adams.. I digress; point is, it's a right rip-off innit? Velocity tax, basically. What if we could maintain that initial 500 mJ / kg-m/s or kg-m^2 in the angular case... all the way up to C? 299792458 * 1/2 = 149896229 J. That's how much energy it'd cost to get 1 kg up to lightspeed, using reactionless momentum. Subtracting that from the standard cost: 44937758936840900 - 149896229 = 44937758786944671 J. That's how much energy we'd save. Incidentally again, however, if we see how many times that cut-price ticket divides into the standard V^2 value:
RE: [Vo]:Successful Mechanical OU
If this thing is real, give up trying to get fame or fortune out of it. Just mail copies of how to build it to various people who are likely to put it together – before you get mysteriously stopped somehow. Destroying the elite is a worthy goal of a lifetime.
Re: [Vo]:Successful Mechanical OU
LOL the quote you're referring to is expressly a calculation of the energy efficiency of a hypothetical fully-asymmetric distribution of momentum, ie. an effective N3 symmetry break, in the context of Bessler's 'toys page'. The purpose is to illustrate the decoupling of input to output energies as they evolve as a function of accumulating this notionally 'reactionless momentum'. Like i say, this EXAMPLE sequence rises in 25% steps, reaching unity at 4, and 125% OU at five. Thus, items 'A' and 'B' on the toys page are consistent with an allusion to this form of symmetry break.. if not its means. Had you actually read what i'm saying more carefully, you'd note that i'm actually claiming a much simpler process for achieving the same end, WITHOUT having to perform 5 discrete reactionless accelerations to reach 125% of unity. Instead, i'm claiming 190% in a single interaction, in a single second. So, even more worserer, bashically... I absolutely encourage you to keep having fun working out why it's not possible, and just how confounding any exception would be... but do keep in mind that i'm going to show you something that shatters such certainties.. On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 5:25 PM, John Shop wrote: > On 4/06/2018 11:19 PM, Vibrator ! wrote: > > . . . > The only precondition there is that we can apply a force between two > inertias, which nonetheless only accelerates one of them. > > This I suggest is your problem. If you apply a force between two masses > or inertias, then one must accelerate in the opposite direction to the > other (Newton's first law). If one of them is massive enough (eg make it > the earth), then only the light one is accelerated by any measurable amount > (but the tiny acceleration of the heavy one ensures that momentum is > conserved). > > You could apply a force between two equal inertias so that one accelerates > forward and the other accelerates backwards, and then bounce one of them > off a wall fixed to the earth say. Now you would have them both moving in > the same direction and with the same speed. But their total kinetic energy > would be equal to that put in during the acceleration phase (the bounce > being elastic and conservative). So each would contain say 0.5 joules of > energy for a total of one joule put in by the initial acceleration > impulse. Let's call this square one. > > At this stage you could then apply the same accelerating impulse as the > first time between the two inertias (which are now both travelling along > together) and the speed of one would double, while the other would become > stationary. Here the kinetic energy of one has gone up by a factor of 4 > (due to v^2) to become 2 joules while the energy of the other has gone down > to zero - the total being the 2 joules that have been put in by the two > accelerations (so no gain). Call this square two. > > 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). > > As you note, inelastic collisions waste kinetic energy by turning it into > heat. So joining the stationary mass to the travelling mass inelastically > with a piece of string will produce a combined speed which is just the same > as the speed of both masses before applying the second impulse (from > conservation of momentum). So the entire effect of the second impulse will > have been undone taking us back to square one. > > I see no way to progress beyond square two that does not simply take us > back to square one? >
Re: [Vo]:Successful Mechanical OU
No EM energy asymmetry alone can even speak to the issue of CoM - apples to oranges. CoM is not energy-dependent - it doesn't matter how much energy we throw at it, nor its provenance. The time-dependent variable you propose here is just a causality violation - photons by definition propagate at C, ie. either the fields are interacting, and hence powering on the second electro-magnet presents as a load upon the first one's energy supply via Lenz's law and thus complying with Newton's 3rd, or else there is never any time for a force to be in effect between them, and so no mechanical acceleration. Likewise, if a magnetic sample is being propelled by an applied field, then either it is accelerating and so applying back-EMF, or else we're invoking an unsupported N3 violation again. You CAN leverage time-dependent mechanical energy asymmetries via the processes i've described, however. On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 5:30 PM, John Berry wrote: > 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 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
Re: [Vo]:Successful Mechanical OU
@John
Your view of what is conserved and why is too simple, and essentially
incomplete.
All force interactions perform work against the vacuum activity manifesting
that force - the discrete, quantised energy exchanges between the
respective force carriers in question, traded in units of h-bar -
essentially, 'ambient' quantum momentum.
When we input mechanical energy to a such field, there is no number
scribbled down in a book somewhere - rather, it's an emergent calculation
determined by the application of the relevant F*d integrals being mediated
at lightspeed - ie, essentially instantaneously, as they pertain to the
respective dimensions of the given energy terms.
Thus if output and input energy terms are in different respective
dimensions, any equivalence between net energies as a function of changes
in time and space is dependent upon further conditions with regards to how
each term scales in the other's domain.
If both input and output energy terms are in the same fields and domains,
then their equality is a given. And yet, it would be a step too far to
conclude that the Joule we get back out was 'the same' Joule we put it.
When we spend 1 J lifting a weight, so having performed work against
gravity, there isn't a tab somewhere saying "gravity owes Bob 1 J". The
fact that we only get 1 J back out from the drop is simply an incidental
consequence of the invariant input vs output conditions. But it's not
manifestly 'the same' Joule you put in - just the same amount of energy /
work.
With the right change in those determinant conditions, we can get more out,
or less. An under-unity, or over-unity result.
Consider the case for so-called 'non-dissipative' loss mechanisms, in which
the energy in question has NOT simply been radiated away to low-grade
heat. I'm talking about 'non-thermodynamic' losses, in the literal sense.
For example:
- Due to Sv (entropy viscosity - the subject of Rutherford's first paper
in 1886), a small NdFeB magnet will rapidly leap across a small airgap to
latch onto a lump of 'pig iron', in less time than is required for the
iron's subsequent induced magnetisation ('B', in Maxwell's terms) to reach
its corresponding threshold (Bmax, or even saturation density - Bmax - if
its coercivity is low enough).
So the iron's level of induced B, from the neo, continues increasing long
after the mechanical action's all over.
We could monitor this changing internal state, using a simple coil and
audio amplifier, tuning in to the so-called Barkhausen jumps, as
progressively harder-pinned domains succumb to the growing influence of
their lower-coercivity neighbors. After some time, the clicking noise
abates, and so we know the sample's at Bmax.
We now prise them apart again, however because B has risen, so has the
mechanical force and thus work involved in separating them.
Quite simply, due to the time-dependent change in force, which did not
occur instantaneously at lightspeed, the system is mechanically under-unity
- it outputs less energy during the inbound integral, than must be input
during the outbound integral over the same distance.
So we could input 2 J, but only get 1 J back out.
Yet this 'loss' has not been dissipated as heat - it's simply energy that
never existed, never came to be, in the first place. Energy that could've
been collected, had we constrained the neo's approach speed, to allow
induced B to keep up... but which wasn't, because we didn't.
Thus the extra Joule we had to input has performed more work against the
virtual-photon-spehere (being the EM mediator), than it in turn has output
back into the mechanical realm. Assuming ultimate conservation - as you
would seem to - we've raised the vacuum energy by 1 J, with a 50%
under-unity EM-mechanical interaction.
Yet we don't need such exotica as obscure magnetic effects to achieve this
feat... simply consider a moving mass, colliding inelastically with an
equal, static one:
- so we could have 1 kg flying into a static 1 kg
- or equally, a rotating 1 kg-m^2 angular inertia being instantly braked
against an identical static one
Since spontaneously doubling the amount of inertia that a given conserved
momentum is divided into accordingly halves its speed, we end up with half
the kinetic energy.
"Ah", but you say, "the collision converted the other half of the KE into
heat!"
But is that actually what happens? If we began with say 1 kg * 1 m/s
linear momentum, so half a Joule, which then inelastically scoops up
another, static 1 kg, we now have 1 kg-m/s divided into two 1 kg masses,
hence a net system velocity of 0.5 m/s, and 125 mJ on each, for a 250 mJ
net KE.
Notice that we've necessarily assumed full conservation of our velocity
component, simply sharing it evenly between the two masses, in order to
conserve net momentum.
Given that the original KE value of 500 mJ was a function of that conserved
velocity, and that the final KE of 2 * 125 mJ is also dependent upon the
equitable distribution
Re: [Vo]:Successful Mechanical OU
On 5/06/2018 12:37 AM, Vibrator ! wrote: 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, All looks OK (even if rather strange language) to here. but also halve the relative (angular?) 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 This is numerically correct but dimensionally incorrect (which is maybe why you use the quotes). Angular momentum does not have the same dimensions as linear momentum and so they really cannot be added in this fashion (just as you can't add 4.905 meters to 9.81 square-meters and obtain a reasonable result as 14.715 somethings). ... 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. . . .
Re: [Vo]:Successful Mechanical OU
@Chris You're kind of on the right track, if not quite for the right reasons yet, but yes, i've concluded i ought to make a full disclosure within a few days. I'd wanted to 'do the right thing' and minimise the chances of causing harm, also giving UK academia first dibs. No one's taken the bait yet. Last night i went further and sent a copy of the proofs to Martin Tajmar at Dresden, so . No response expected or received, yet - but you gotta give the guy a chance to see and follow it, assuming it ever got past the crank-email filter in the first place.. You can't expect anyone, least of all a renowned scientist, to dive in to such a heresy overnight. But if i haven't had a bite by the weekend, i'll post up everything i have for all to see... and so passing responsibility for its safe deployment to whomever wants to take it on. I fully expect this to go disastrously. Most folks will have no idea what they're seeing, and most who start trying to build will be 'cargo cult engineering', with no conception of how the gain actually arises or what their design will need to do to successfully manifest and harness it. They'll just start knocking up something that looks like it does the same kind of thing, as far as they can tell, anyway. Anyone actually tackling it with any intelligence and planning is almost certainly going to aim for the lowest-hanging fruit of an apparent 'gravity wheel', and hence applying net momentum to Earth each cycle. I can tell myself that makes them the see-you-next-tuesday, but hey, giving people guns = giving stupid people guns. Hardly the exoneration i'd like. But it's that, or risk burying it the same way Bessler did... On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 4:34 PM, Chris Zell wrote: > So give us good pictures already. Enough with the verbiage. > > > > I increasingly believe in the negative power of stigmergy rather than > conspiracy. People just blindly follow each other like termites and build > ideas as truth. “Everybody knows” that centrifugal force is just a > pseudo- force, right? No reason to examine it…… > > > > While Eric Laithwaite was criticized widely, I was impressed that a heavy > rotor could be lifted and swung around with little effort, pseudo-force or > not. >
Re: [Vo]:Successful Mechanical OU
@ John "No" to any inference of mysterious energy fields permeating the masses, but "absolutely" to the interplays and respective dimensions of 'acceleration'. 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 height. 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 different. 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
Re: [Vo]:Successful Mechanical OU
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 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
Re: [Vo]:Successful Mechanical OU
On 4/06/2018 11:19 PM, Vibrator ! wrote: . . . The only precondition there is that we can apply a force between two inertias, which nonetheless only accelerates one of them. This I suggest is your problem. If you apply a force between two masses or inertias, then one must accelerate in the opposite direction to the other (Newton's first law). If one of them is massive enough (eg make it the earth), then only the light one is accelerated by any measurable amount (but the tiny acceleration of the heavy one ensures that momentum is conserved). You could apply a force between two equal inertias so that one accelerates forward and the other accelerates backwards, and then bounce one of them off a wall fixed to the earth say. Now you would have them both moving in the same direction and with the same speed. But their total kinetic energy would be equal to that put in during the acceleration phase (the bounce being elastic and conservative). So each would contain say 0.5 joules of energy for a total of one joule put in by the initial acceleration impulse. Let's call this square one. At this stage you could then apply the same accelerating impulse as the first time between the two inertias (which are now both travelling along together) and the speed of one would double, while the other would become stationary. Here the kinetic energy of one has gone up by a factor of 4 (due to v^2) to become 2 joules while the energy of the other has gone down to zero - the total being the 2 joules that have been put in by the two accelerations (so no gain). Call this square two. 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). As you note, inelastic collisions waste kinetic energy by turning it into heat. So joining the stationary mass to the travelling mass inelastically with a piece of string will produce a combined speed which is just the same as the speed of both masses before applying the second impulse (from conservation of momentum). So the entire effect of the second impulse will have been undone taking us back to square one. I see no way to progress beyond square two that does not simply take us back to square one?
Re: [Vo]:Successful Mechanical OU
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.
RE: [Vo]:Successful Mechanical OU
So give us good pictures already. Enough with the verbiage. I increasingly believe in the negative power of stigmergy rather than conspiracy. People just blindly follow each other like termites and build ideas as truth. “Everybody knows” that centrifugal force is just a pseudo- force, right? No reason to examine it…… While Eric Laithwaite was criticized widely, I was impressed that a heavy rotor could be lifted and swung around with little effort, pseudo-force or not.
Re: [Vo]:Successful Mechanical OU
@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',
RE: [Vo]:Successful Mechanical OU
If the prototype works, let’s see a You Tube. Or at least some good drawings.
Re: [Vo]:Successful Mechanical OU
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 ! 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 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 ! >> 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 ! >>> 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
Re: [Vo]:Successful Mechanical OU
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
