The best way to sell an idea is to produce a product based on the idea that can make money and lots of it.
On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 8:15 PM, John Berry <aethe...@gmail.com> wrote: > correction: Ideally film the construction > > On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 12:13 PM, John Berry <aethe...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hi vibrator. The "right" people are hard to fine. >> >> Very few people will consider that the CoM or the CoE could possibly be >> violated and won't even humor you. >> >> Actually, that's not true, a lot of people who don't know what that even >> means will happily believe you, but they will not be of any use either. >> >> I will entertain the idea you could be on to something. >> >> But, I'm not good with equations, and no one would listen to me either. >> >> IMO the only option you have is of building it, either in reality, or >> possibly in some suitable trusted simulation software. >> >> You have to prove what you are claiming, there are basically 4 ways of >> doing that. >> >> 1: Argue the case in English. >> 2: Argue the case in Math. >> 3: Argue the case in a simulation. >> 4: Demonstrate it by building it in as open and transparent a means >> possible, ideally fil the construction, use actualy transparrent materials >> everywhere possible. >> >> Actually, there is a 5th possibility and you should consider if this is >> possible carefully... >> >> 5: Make a 3D printable working model of your discovery. >> >> As for IP, f*ck it, the world needs what you have, you will never be able >> to profit from this in the way you deserve, but trying to will lead to the >> inventions suppression and maybe your death. >> >> John >> >> On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 5:27 AM, Vibrator ! <mrvibrat...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> I've found Bessler's gain principle. The energy density's obviously >>> 'infinite', and power density's limited only by material constraints. >>> >>> A propulsion application is also implied, but not yet tested. >>> >>> I've put together some WM2D sims, independently metering all component >>> variables of the input / output energy, for cross-referencing consistency - >>> no stone is left unturned, and there are no gaps. All values have also >>> been checked with manual calcs. The results are incontrovertible - this is >>> neither mistake, nor psychosis. >>> >>> >>> >>> It's been a week since achieving certainty, yet all i've done in that >>> time is stare in disbelief at the results. >>> >>> Yet it's no 'happy accident' either - i worked out the solution from >>> first principles, then put together a mechanism that does what the maths >>> do, confirming the theory. >>> >>> I'm understandably even more incredulous at the implications of the CoM >>> violation than the CoE one, yet the latter's entirely dependent upon the >>> former. Both are being empirically measured, in a direct causal >>> relationship. >>> >>> >>> This absolutely demands immediate wider attention. >>> >>> >>> But who in their right mind would even look at it? How do i bring it to >>> the attentions of the 'right' people - the ones that need to know about it, >>> and who can join in the R&D - without resorting to futile crank-emails to >>> universities and govt. departments etc.? >>> >>> I've wasted a week, so far. Too long, already. >>> >>> >>> Pretty much blinded in the headlights here.. i could sorely do with >>> making a few bob off it, but at the same time it's too important to sit on >>> - so how to reconcile these conflicting priorities? >>> >>> I'd like to post up the sims here, or at least provide a link to them, >>> just to share the findings with ANYONE able to comprehend them... it's >>> just classical mechanics (or at least, the parts that can actually be >>> measured) - force, mass and motion. The absolute basics. Simply no room >>> for error or ambiguity. Unequivocal 'free' energy; currently around 190% >>> of unity. You definitely want to see this, and i desperately want to share >>> it. >>> >>> What should i do though? How does one proceed, in this kind of >>> situation? >>> >> >> >
