..at a guess, that "if it works then it validates his 'Eratz gravity' theory, although Lord knows what it is actually doing one way or the other.."
I don't get the impression that anyone there's able to follow much if anything of what i'm doing, and most probably think it's an attempt at a GPE asymmetry.. only, not as good as the one they've just thought of. The general objective of BWF participants is to try to crack perpetual overbalance - essentially, a GPE asymmetry / 'gravity mill'.. ..hence why i'm reporting my progress here. It's OK, i expect ridicule - it's mechanical OU, goes with the territory - and i apologise for insulting your intelligence with such absurd claims. It's a genuine measurement, of a rig specifically designed to accumulate momentum by repeatedly sinking counter-momentum to gravity. The purpose was to try to consolidate more rotational KE from gravitationally-augmented asymmetric inertial interactions, than the GPE cost of absorbing their counter-momenta.. ..and to that end, it appears to work. As i've explained ad nauseum here and there, however, it's impossible to get a KE gain without altering Earth's resting momentum state - buy a free energy machine, get a free warp drive, not optional.. I'm convinced Bessler's 1717 winter demo caused the 1717 Christmas storm that wrecked the NW European coastline.. since we have the mode of causation, as well as the correlations in location and time.. If i'm wrong, hands up - everyone laugh at the crazy guy, no harm done. If OTOH i'm on to something.. All cards on the table - the whole thing's there in the thread, no secret sauce, just basic mechanics.. doing my best to minimise potential error sources, but the gain's persistent, and now hundreds of Joules above noise.. at what point do seek some kind of peer review from such findings? "Peers" = those able to actually review the work.. Honestly. The lengths Vorts go to in trying to follow what LENR researchers are up to.. mech. OU / reactionless momentum leaves everything else in the dust.. obsolescence. White elephants all round. And it's open research you're being invited to review.. to assist with, even.. On Mon, Feb 24, 2020 at 6:38 PM Terry Blanton <hohlr...@gmail.com> wrote: > What does Grimer think? I believe he's on that list. > > Cheers! > > On Mon, Feb 24, 2020 at 6:26 AM Vibrator ! <mrvibrat...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> ..rather than trying to re-summarise the whole thing here, anyone >> interested should review my current thread on the BWF; currently looking >> at 471 Joules in, for 854 Joules out, with an uncertainty of +/- 0.4 >> Joules, from this interaction: >> >> https://i.ibb.co/BPVMtbV/Fully-Active-low-res.gif >> (that's just a low-quality animation of the measured examples) >> >> >> It's basically sinking counter-momenta to gravity and accumulating the >> resulting momentum rise at constant energy cost (evolving linearly WRT >> velocity) for a squaring KE value. >> >> The energy gain is substantially greater than the GPE cost of rendering >> the effective N3 break. >> >> Current efficiency appears to be 181%, across the board - ie. you can put >> in as much as you want by raising the 'target relative speed'.. >> >> >> As ever, caveat emptor - just cos i ain't found the FUBAR yet don't mean >> it ain't there.. >> >> The thread's a meandering night-by-night research log, hypotheses all >> over the place, and so might be more informatively read backwards as >> forwards (you know how these things go): >> >> https://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=172273#172273 >> >> Don't wanna waste anyone's time on the one hand, but wanna keep you guys >> in the loop if it's real.. i honestly don't know what more i could do with >> it if it is.. >> >> (i know it's a chore but would appreciate if the thread were checked >> first to see if specific questions are already answered, tho happy to >> oblige either way) >> >> >>
