Why should we bother trying?

[Grimer]

I did.

You obviously don't understand the answer - which doesn't surprise me.

[Ealadha]

My question is posed to you, not for my own personal closure, but to provide a rhetorical argument to those on the outside looking in. Let's face it: the majority of people would not agree with us that a machine powered by gravity is possible. As a believer, what are your arguments that such a thing is possible.

Over 20 years ago i seen a UFO hovering silently above a tree a few meters away from where i was standing , not only did it defy gravity but slowly vanished into thin air .
Sounds impossible , but that is what i saw .

[Wubbly]

Obviously changing inertial qualities of masses would work miracles. Do you have an actual means for doing this?

It's not that hard to do. In a linear system, mass is directly related to inertia because if you double the mass, you double the inertia. (If you double the mass, it's twice as hard to accelerate the object.) In a rotational system, however, the "mass like" quantity is not simply the mass, it is the "moment of inertia". In a rotational system you can keep your system mass constant but change the moment of inertia simply by moving the mass toward or away from the center of rotation. Think of an MT-1. When you move your mass toward the center of rotation, your system becomes easier to rotate (it's moment of inertia gets smaller). When you move your mass away from the center of rotation, your system becomes harder to rotate (it's moment of inertia gets larger).

So in a rotating system, you can change the inertial quality of the system mass simply by moving the internal mass. You are keeping the system mass constant, but changing the "mass like" quantity. Of course everything comes with a price. To change the position of a mass in a rotating system (e.g. move the mass closer to the center of rotation), would require some force applied over some distance (some energy expenditure).


Why should we bother trying? Because no one has been able to conclusively prove that Bessler was a fake.

[path_finder]

Just for the memory, and in relation with the inertial engines:
http://www.tsiriggakis.gr/sm.html#1

[nicbordeaux]

It's an act of rebellion. We try because we've been told we shouldn't try.... ;)

That's a big part of the fun. Some people, most of us here, don't take orders easily, or don't believe a lot of what we're told. That I guess comes a lot from knowing yourself and your imperfections, thence being able to recognize them in others.

PM ? Entertained some vague thoughts as a kid, but there was too much to do, nameley Women. and Booze. And Fishing. And motorbkes. Then a family, a job taking often 14 hours a day with phone calls in the middle of the night. Just too busy.

Then when you're about 47 you might get rather p*ssed off at the dependancy on utility companies, so start looking into renewables, going off the grid. Then for some mad reason PM occurs to you, you start doing drawings... make a prototype, and it doesn't work. And that is what get's you hooked. A real challenge. And not standing for dumb machines and conservative forces trying to pretend they are cleverer than you.

It's the rambo syndrome :"If you want a war I'll give you a war you won't believe!"

[iacob alex]

Hi P_F !

I talk to you ,because you are a talented builder...and maybe successful in the future,if you find and understand the "true line" for free energy(gravity motor) and easy transport (inertial propulsion).

For the moment,these subjects are regarded as "phantasms" by the standard science...nothing new under the Sun.

Your setting about Tsiriggakis and his GRM, is useful to understand the state of matter regarding this subject in our time (2010).

Sorry,but when somebody uses the term "antigravity" ,I go away ...

Alike a possible gravity motor,a worthly of consideration inertial propeller must be imagined (and so,easy to test!) as simple as possible,because they have a common symbol with the natural mechanics:the eccentricity.

All the best! / Alex

[Grimer]

Obviously changing inertial qualities of masses would work miracles. Do you have an actual means for doing this?

It's not that hard to do. In a linear system, mass is directly related to inertia because if you double the mass, you double the inertia. (If you double the mass, it's twice as hard to accelerate the object.) In a rotational system, however, the "mass like" quantity is not simply the mass, it is the "moment of inertia". In a rotational system you can keep your system mass constant but change the moment of inertia simply by moving the mass toward or away from the center of rotation. Think of an MT-1. When you move your mass toward the center of rotation, your system becomes easier to rotate (it's moment of inertia gets smaller). When you move your mass away from the center of rotation, your system becomes harder to rotate (it's moment of inertia gets larger).

So in a rotating system, you can change the inertial quality of the system mass simply by moving the internal mass. You are keeping the system mass constant, but changing the "mass like" quantity. Of course everything comes with a price. To change the position of a mass in a rotating system (e.g. move the mass closer to the center of rotation), would require some force applied over some distance (some energy expenditure).


Why should we bother trying? Because no one has been able to conclusively prove that Bessler was a fake.

A nice simple explanation of the relation between gravitational mass and inertia the point being that gravitational mass (Newtonian mass) is independent of non linear motion whereas inertial mass (Ersatz mass) isn't. In short, mass is a property of matter, not a measure of the amount of matter.