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 <hveeder...@gmail.com> 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 ! <mrvibrat...@gmail.com> 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 ! <mrvibrat...@gmail.com> 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 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> 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> >>>> *Sent:* Friday, June 1, 2018 5:33 PM >>>> *To:* 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> wrote: >>>> >>>> Grimes, Damn autocorrect. >>>> >>>> On Fri, Jun 1, 2018, 4:12 PM Terry Blanton <hohlr...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> Crimes? >>>> >>>> On Fri, Jun 1, 2018, 4:11 PM Terry Blanton <hohlr...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Fri, Jun 1, 2018, 1:42 PM Vibrator ! <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 * >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >
