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 ! <mrvibrat...@gmail.com> 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 <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 * >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
