How can anyone validate when there is no data from a five year old system?What is claimed for the device? Where is a video of the unit running?
________________________________ From: Vibrator ! <mrvibrat...@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, June 3, 2018 11:05 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Successful Mechanical OU I've only started this thread in the attempt to get independent data. It's been just over a week since achieving certainty. None of the uni's are responding to my crank emails, for some strange reason. Perhaps you could help refine my template? "Dear proper physics-talking dudes, please find enclosed evidence of my free-energy warp-drive doomsday machine, what i've made by waving two masses around, type stuff. Note all the weird squiggly lines in the plots, and the nice pastel colour-scheme. Do i win £5?" The DoE didn't bite, UCL physics won't bite, i tried spamming it to Imp. College physics last night, no reply yet and not really expecting one... So i've tried asking here, and the best suggestions so far are "measure its efficiency as a function of CoP" (for heat pumps?) and making a 3D-printable version of a device that's almost certain to destroy us if not deployed in a sensible manner. I haven't come here to impress or gloat, i'm asking for advice on how to proceed. Who to approach for independent corroboration? It's just rock-bottom basics - force, mass and motion. Everyone think's the barrel's long scraped dry, and all the uni's are focused on particle physics, dark matter and laser spectroscopy etc. At least LENR is zeitgeist crank physics, posing new and exciting impossibilities; classical mechanics OTOH - mechanical OU? - seriously? I seriously think i've found an elephant in the custard of classical physics? Ha..! Good luck with that eh.. Who should i show it to, who can help move things forwards in some way? A volunteer, a nomination, any reliable person or group anywhere? On Sun, Jun 3, 2018 at 1:25 PM, Brian Ahern <ahern_br...@msn.com<mailto:ahern_br...@msn.com>> wrote: Here we have all the elements of a fine scam. He is taking the Rossi play book, page 1. 1. no independent data 2. no independent experiments 3. claim earlier experiments were wildly positive 4. ________________________________ From: Frank Grimer <88.fr...@gmail.com<mailto:88.fr...@gmail.com>> Sent: Friday, June 1, 2018 5:33 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Successful Mechanical OU No, no, no. On 1 June 2018 at 21:15, Terry Blanton <hohlr...@gmail.com<mailto:hohlr...@gmail.com>> wrote: Grimes, Damn autocorrect. On Fri, Jun 1, 2018, 4:12 PM Terry Blanton <hohlr...@gmail.com<mailto:hohlr...@gmail.com>> wrote: Crimes? On Fri, Jun 1, 2018, 4:11 PM Terry Blanton <hohlr...@gmail.com<mailto:hohlr...@gmail.com>> wrote: On Fri, Jun 1, 2018, 1:42 PM Vibrator ! <mrvibrat...@gmail.com<mailto:mrvibrat...@gmail.com>> wrote: @Chris - Weird, reminiscent of some kind of frame-dragging effect, or 'remanence' of the Higgs field? Sounds pretty whack either way, but hey who am i to talk.. Frank Crimes, is that you inside the Vibrator? -- quae est ista quae progreditur quasi aurora consurgens pulchra ut luna electa ut sol terribilis ut acies ordinata
