@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 Zealand, where a 'mega-quake' also occurred in approximately the same time frame, along the Alpine fault line. The precise date cannot be known as no local accounts survive (this was prior to European settlement), and geologists believe the event was overdue anyway... however, again, this is hardly the 'all clear' signal we'd like to see. Both sets of events would be purely circumstantial, but for the fact that we're looking at a plausible means of causation, as well as correlation. But even if they were purely coincidental, the prospect of an uncontrolled mass deployment in its crudest form – and especially if using gravity - before such concerns can be thoroughly eliminated, should give serious pause for thought; an online video would hardly need to go viral before there were enough replications in operation to dwarf any possible fallout from Bessler's five-week demo. I totally lean towards the 'free-for-all' solution. Given the internet age, widening inequalities, increasingly-strained resources and energy-poverty, it just feels like the way it's 'supposed' to happen, right? The right tech at the right time in the right place, disseminated via the right means.. a perfect cosmic alignment.. but is it REALLY worth the risk of an uncontrolled mass deployment of an inadvertent 'terrestrial warp drive'? Every new energy panacea seems to have a bigger sting in the tail than the last one... if this one's no exception then we could end up burning a sh!t-load of fossil fuels frantically pedalling our Bessler wheels in reverse in the attempt to undo whatever damage they've wrought.. LOL what if Germany and New Zealand went to war and started trying to flood or freakin' volcano each other..? Absurd, but only politically. More tangible risks would be geological and meteorological etc. - especially upsetting the various lunar tidal-lock equillibria.. small effects yet with massive outcomes. No free lunch, no actions without consequences, caveat emptor etc. Maybe this is how civilisations destroy themselves before being able to develop radio. Maybe we're only still here because we dodged a massive bullet 300 years ago, and the forces of greed and patho-skepticism actually did us all a solid, for once. Look how far we've come since! It was the dawn of the steam age. Indeed, Bessler likely lost out on potential investors beginning to sit up and take notice of the works of Newcomen et al, obviously a much more prudent investment, but the result is that today we have millions of transistors / mm^2 and free pr0n on tap. Oh and walking on the moon and all that. Plus we now have the wherewithal to understand the bigger picture.. ..when i realised that an effective violation of N3 was written between the lines of CoM and CoE as the implicit solution to OU, i figured Bessler must've independently solved the 'vis viva dispute' of the 18th century - Newton initially formulated it as mV, Leibniz as 1/2mV^2, and s' Gravesande proved the distinction between them. Although the latter two were personal friends of Bessler and convinced they were witnessing OU (albeit in the terminologies of the day), Bessler doesn't seem to make any obvious references to such a distinction, yet 'deliberate' OU seems impossible without the underlying theoretical framework mapped out. Hence the implication that he must've beaten everyone else to the punch, but kept it secret as part of his 'solution' and hoped-for IP. As such, he would also have been aware of the grounded counter-momentum, and the circumstantial connection between the great storm and his demo would arguably have plagued his conscience thereafter, not least in regards of his Christian faith and the possible abuse of this God-given power to move the very planet, vouchsafed unto him alone etc. etc. It is now apparent however that such an understanding is unnecessary, and that the working principle can be discovered fortuitously whilst investigating another (unworkable) possibility. He very possibly had no conception at all of the distinction between momentum and energy, and would understandably be unconcerned by whatever the Newtonians and Leibniz crew were debating, since his wheels simply worked, regardless. Bessler - a devout protestant - planned to use the 20,000 Thalers he was asking to open a unitarian school, not a physics school. His 'cosmology', informed by his discoveries, was likely total fruit-loopery. But today, we know better, and have no excuses to shoot ourselves in the foot.. So on the one hand it'd be cool to have cars that don't need fuel, or wheels, or roads.. but you can forget about autopilot if we can no longer rely on GPS, and if we start opening up flood basalts we'll need the freakin' tidal waves to help quench them, and greenhoused agriculture to feed the surviving population etc. etc. - it's the knock-on consequences, down the line, that are actually the more immediate priority. And all of this is totally nuts - have you ever read such a crock? - but then i go look at the results again and... damn.. it just is what it is.. and all the more nuts for it. There's a default time/distance/momentum symmetry inherent to any mechanical interaction against any force, that, as it turns out, is not truly fundamental, but rather an incidental consequence of mass constancy, and which is thus broken by an effective N3 violation, in turn causing an effective N1 violation. Incidentally, gravity already violates N2 per Galileo's principle (it's a uniform acceleration decoupled from the amount of mass, per the usual F=mA), so all three laws of motion are somewhat conditional on further assumptions.. this is just the way the universe is built. It works. I'm looking at it right now. Massive, indisputable gains in mechanical energy, 14 orders above noise and all perfectly accounted for... by a 1.4 meter drop in the center-of-momentum reference frame between the weight and Earth. The simulator (WM2D) ultimately assumes that coordinate space itself is 'stationary', and since the excess momentum is sunk to this, it can't be measured at the moment. So the system has to be simmed in relation to a mobile point-source for the applied force - such as a horizontally-floating centrifuge, which the sim can model. It's been one week since achieving certainty, so after 300 years, a little bit longer won't hurt.. but rushing things is almost certain to. On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 6:30 AM, <mix...@bigpond.com> wrote: > In reply to Vibrator !'s message of Fri, 1 Jun 2018 04:01:20 +0100: > Hi, > > We humans use about 500 quad/yr of energy. At that rate it would take 5 > trillion > years to use all the kinetic energy of the Earth going around the Sun. > Every movement on the surface of the planet imparts angular momentum to the > planet, most of which probably cancels out. The Earth is also constantly > losing > angular momentum to the Moon (rotational about it's axis). It hardly makes > any > difference. You don't see people worried about tapping tidal energy do > you? I > seriously doubt your device would have a noticeable impact in your > lifetime, or > that of anyone else now alive, even if everyone used it the "wrong" way. > If, > over many lifetimes, the impact became noticeable, I'm sure by then we > will have > found alternatives anyway. > > > >I could make a video right now that'd go viral overnight - at least within > >our crank circles - and every back-yard inventor from here to Calcutta > will > >promptly go start generating "energy from gravity" (in their mistaken > >belief anyway), whilst inadvertently applying equal opposing > >counter-momenta to Earth on every cycle. > > > >I'd give us maybe a few weeks - couple of months tops - before the full-on > >cannibal holocaust and ELE, but the TL;DR is that any unprecedented > changes > >to the planet's resting momentum state will cause cataclysmic > >meteorological, marine and geological upheaval - much of the worlds' > >densest conurbations are concentrated around low-lying coastal areas, and > >any small variation in the lunar tidal lock will unleash the hounds of > >hell.. any minor perturbation will precipitate all manner of tidal > surges, > >mega-quakes and volcanism, any minor effective radial motion of the solid > >inner core relative to the mushy outer layers will send pressure waves > >upwards, aligned along the axis of acceleration, there'll be oceans > >sloshing here and there, crazy high-pressure atmospheric systems, the > >Earth's thermal dynamo will break homeostasis with the lunar cycle... we > >could destabilise the Moon's orbit, or our solar orbit, or both, and this > >is just considering the effects from stray linear momenta - stray angular > >momenta are another risk (and could be caused by simply lying the system > >horizontally with respect to gravity, perhaps in the mistaken belief this > >will prevent grounding stray momentum; it won't, instead converting it > >directly to axial angular momentum and so interfering with day-length and > >axial tilt and hence the seasonal equilibria etc.), etc. > > > >Still, i guess i could rake in a few YouTube clicks in whatever short time > >we had left... > > > >It has to be done safely, or not at all.. a great rush to off-grid > utopia > >and mass water desalination and it'll be a short-lived victory.. we're > >simply not used to the prospect of such a fast-acting form of pollution. > >It's usually something we consider our grand kids will mostly have to deal > >with, on the scale of centuries, or at least decades. > > > >We could be looking at a key variable in the Drake equation, and Fermi > >paradox... every step in the gain principle is entirely dependent upon > CoM > >and CoE holding precisely as they're supposed to - it works because of > >them, not in spite of them. Hence any assumption there's anything 'free' > >or inconsequential about it is wholly inconsistent with the current > >results.. again, you cannot have mechanical OU without an effective break > >in momentum symmetry. The resulting net rise can be mutually-cancelled by > >an identical counterposed momentum, but if this is not done then the > excess > >starts accumulating, and one way or another, things start speeding up or > >slowing down... basically, accelerating. > > > >So yeah.. all good fun, no question.. but this is big boys' toys.. And > >not in the 'Newton's cradle' kind of way.. > > > >On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 3:17 AM, Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> The common thinking about successful over unity is to produce a COP of 6 > >> or over. The one application that you might try is a toy. If your > invention > >> can operate without any inputs, this type of toy could go viral. people > >> would buy it just to understand how it could work. Try the toy industry. > >> > >> On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 9:59 PM, Vibrator ! <mrvibrat...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> > >>> @John - cheers mate, like i say, i have indisputable proof-positive > >>> already, it's just a question of what the hell to do with it. Who to > show > >>> it to, if i also want some kind of, umm, fiscal recompense.. ghastly > >>> subject, but i've been really burning the candle both ends on this for > five > >>> years and ain't got two pennies to rub together. Like Bessler, i feel > the > >>> most desirable outcome for moi would be a full-disclosure IP sale; > buyer > >>> walks away with everything, my hands washed. > >>> > >>> I just crank-emailed a London IP attorney - not that i could even > afford > >>> their services, and not that i even have a particular 'embodiment' to > >>> protect.. it really is just an interaction, albeit, performing 'the > >>> impossible' - input 38 J, in 1 second it spits out 72 J, with 34 J > excess > >>> left after reset. 190% of unity.. so yeah, not expecting a reply, but > even > >>> if they are so courteous, you can't patent the laws of nature any more > than > >>> a PMM. > >>> > >>> > >>> @Axil - likewise appreciated, but i really wouldn't have the means to > >>> accomplish that. > >>> > >>> More to the point, i don't want to be wasting my time and everyone > else's > >>> lovingly polishing my turd of an engineering effort when BAE or > Mercedes > >>> could have a thousand experts doing the Lord's work on it. > >>> I work as a courier for a living. It's basically picking up packages, > >>> and then delivering them - but usually the address to deliver to is ON > the > >>> package, so, for me, that's just about the right amount of > >>> 'responsibility'. I can pretty much totally handle it (and they say > one > >>> day i might even get paid). THIS on the other hand.. it's too hot a > >>> potato for little old me. But it also doesn't have an address on it, > hence > >>> my quandary. > >>> > >>> On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 1:46 AM, John Berry <aethe...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> > >>>> Yes, but that is hard to do. > >>>> > >>>> And scammers have sold stuff in the past... > >>>> > >>>> On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 12:17 PM, Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> 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? > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>> > >> > Regards, > > > Robin van Spaandonk > > local asymmetry = temporary success > >
