But mass is an accidental property like heat or weight. It's not a quantity of matter. The definition of mass is the definition if inertia. If inertia increases then mass increases because they are the same thing. If you have a lot of fixed gyros in a box which makes it extremely difficult to rotate, increases its rotational inertia in other words, then the box is more massive in relation to inertia but not in relation to translation or gravity. It's like someone with dual nationality.
The following passage comes from a Internal Government Document (Iterative Hierarchical Mechanics N103/87) I wrote more than 20 years ago.
Needless to say it got me into a heap of trouble - as you might expect. My appeal against the research being suppressed went all the way up to the head of the Home Civil Service, Sir Robin Butler, (now Lord Butler).
These equations may be interpreted as follows. Increase in the speed of an inertial body relative to its environment (characterized by an environmental speed) is accompanied by a transformation of the internal velocity, v, into an external velocity u. In other words the external kinetic energy is derived from the internal kinetic energy, or in simpler hierarchical terms, external motion is derived from internal motion. Clearly this is a more mundane and intelligible explanation with the change in inertia with increasing speed than that normally given, an explanation moreover that is fully in accordance with the behaviour of a substance at a higher scale as exemplified by the kinetic theory of heat.
In effect inertial substances are seen as active, not passive; as containing servo-mechanisms, force amplifiers. The energy put into accelerating a body is merely a control energy which is proportional to, but at non-relativistic speeds, a minute fraction of the total energy needed to overcome inertial effects. As the speed of the body reaches speeds comparable with the characteristic field speed the servo-mechanisms become less and less effective until at the speed of light all the energy has to be applied from external sources.
Impact is the Key
Moderator: scott
re: Impact is the Key
Last edited by Grimer on Sat May 09, 2009 1:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Who is she that cometh forth as the morning rising, fair as the moon, bright as the sun, terribilis ut castrorum acies ordinata?
When two weights collide, which one provides the collision energy? Was weight 'A' moving towards weight 'B'? Or was it weight 'B' moving towards weight 'A'? Which weight had more energy? The answer is that the energy depends only on the relative speed difference. Moving weight DO NOT STORE ENERGY! The energy of a moving weight comes about only when the weight is forced to change velocity. The energy comes from the background fabric of space (ether energy, zero point energy, inset any name here energy, etc.). Thus the motion or lack of motion does nothing to effect the mass of a weight.
-
docfeelsgood
- Aficionado
- Posts: 819
- Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 7:38 am
re: Impact is the Key
what do them shrinks call that when you can answer your OWN questions ???
Re: re: Impact is the Key
But I can now and have. Didn't take too long, did it.Grimer wrote:No. Not currently. If I could it wouldn't be a challenge.....ovyyus wrote:The real challenge is to demonstrate.Grimer wrote:... I will take that as a challenge and try to show that it is.
Jim is correct, impact is not the key. It is not a source of energy. Grimer, can you currently demonstrate that impact is a source of energy?
Who is she that cometh forth as the morning rising, fair as the moon, bright as the sun, terribilis ut castrorum acies ordinata?
re: Impact is the Key
Ut hyena est absentis , ut est ut canis crusta.
re: Impact is the Key
Ok I really do not know where to begin. I have read and seen many posts of Hans von Lieven and he is very well versed in physical principles. In my opinion he is probably the best I have seen on all these free energy sites until I saw Figure3 and after on this site: http://keelytech.com/bessler/pop/perpetual.html .
Pop Keenie's wheel has "some promise" but, it still ignores the basic physical property that all self regenerative gravitational engines require. From what I have seen it will not work. Bessler has shown how it can be possible in his MT diagrams. If I suddenly have a "stroke" and show this principle, you will all slap yourselves and say "doh". It is that simple! Not today. :)
How disappointing. :( There is absolutely no gain in this. Collect all energys of the system and they are equil from the start.When we now fire the gun both wheels spin in opposite directions with equal velocity. One wheel is driven by the impact, the other by recoil. We have just doubled our available energy output without further expenditure. More than enough combined energy to re-set the system and do some work!
So the energy is there!!!!!
Pop Keenie's wheel has "some promise" but, it still ignores the basic physical property that all self regenerative gravitational engines require. From what I have seen it will not work. Bessler has shown how it can be possible in his MT diagrams. If I suddenly have a "stroke" and show this principle, you will all slap yourselves and say "doh". It is that simple! Not today. :)
Re: re: Impact is the Key
Yep, very definitely a case of quod erat demonstrandum .ovyyus wrote:Demonstration?
Assuming of course one hasn't forgotten all that first year engineering stuff about the effect of impact load on a beam.
Don't be shy Bill. Tell me I'm wrong.
Who is she that cometh forth as the morning rising, fair as the moon, bright as the sun, terribilis ut castrorum acies ordinata?
re: Impact is the Key
Who is,
can you provide a link?Pop Keenie's
-
justsomeone
- Addict
- Posts: 2094
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 5:21 pm
re: Impact is the Key
I believe the name was used by Hans Von Lieven for the inventor of the buzz saw wheel. Sorry no link.
Re: re: Impact is the Key
What is Pop Keenie's wheel? Links? EDIT (ok - this is the Buzz Saw Wheel ... got it)BAR wrote:Pop Keenie's wheel has "some promise" but, it still ignores the basic physical property that all self regenerative gravitational engines require. From what I have seen it will not work. Bessler has shown how it can be possible in his MT diagrams. If I suddenly have a "stroke" and show this principle, you will all slap yourselves and say "doh". It is that simple! Not today. :)
I feel that i'm also sitting on an extremely simple principle that is required for self regenerating gravity engines to work. It is very tempting just to reveal it and let the wolves pick it to pieces - but not today :)
I would advise against doing this. Please keep it to yourself. I suspect this is not the safest environment to give away the real secret.
One reason for saying this is because I notice that when people get very close to (what I perceive to be) 'the secret' (which is so simple it's embarassing) - the signal to noise gets very strong.
I suspect there are emotional & spiritual reasons (not to mention greed & vested interests) why certain people will never accept this idea, even if dangled right in their face. Human beings are funny things.
Ideas are powerful, but a physical working model is the only thing that's going to be accepted. And should you build one of those, all hell will be let loose.
Anything not related to elephants is irrelephant.
re: Impact is the Key
Thanks for your thoughtful comment, greendoor. You are absolutely right about the secret beinggreendoor wrote:What is Pop Keenie's wheel? Links? EDIT (OK - this is the Buzz Saw Wheel ... got it)
I feel that I'm also sitting on an extremely simple principle that is required for self regenerating gravity engines to work. It is very tempting just to reveal it and let the wolves pick it to pieces - but not today :)
I would advise against doing this. Please keep it to yourself. I suspect this is not the safest environment to give away the real secret.
One reason for saying this is because I notice that when people get very close to (what I perceive to be) 'the secret' (which is so simple it's embarrassing) - the signal to noise gets very strong.
I suspect there are emotional & spiritual reasons (not to mention greed & vested interests) why certain people will never accept this idea, even if dangled right in their face. Human beings are funny things.
Ideas are powerful, but a physical working model is the only thing that's going to be accepted. And should you build one of those, all hell will be let loose.
"so simple it's embarassing". I don't expect most people to accept it even though I "have dangled (it) right in their face".
As for danger. I take More's view.
Long ago my namesake painted this ...
... popularised in that memorable ditty.
One for the rook,
One for the crow,
One will wither
And one will grow.
I agree completely about the physical working model. Fortunately I don't have the skills to build one so I am in no danger from the consequences. But there are plenty of people who read this forum who are brave and who will consider the gains from doing so outweigh the potential risks.
It only takes one and that one will grow.
- Attachments
-
Who is she that cometh forth as the morning rising, fair as the moon, bright as the sun, terribilis ut castrorum acies ordinata?
@ Grimer, cool picture. To be completely honest I don't think you have the secret there. Maybe i'm just not seeing it. It's not what I have in mind anyway. I do think there are others who pretty much have it, and the various pieces have been discussed by various people in this forum over the last year. I could also be delusional.
@ Ruggerodk - I guess you have drawn attention to my signature quote because I am suggesting there are some ideas that shouldn't be discussed in public. I don't see a problem with this. The quote says "great minds freely reveal all ideas" - it just says they "discuss ideas", in preference to discussing events or people.
"Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you." (Mathew 7:6)
Good advice, especially for public internet forums.
It's no secret that most of the gravity wheel patents don't give away the basic secret. And yet somebody has bothered to get a patent. That's not a cheap undertaking, and you would have to question why the owner bothered.
I recently found out that that the basic model I am experimenting with actually has been patented before. Which gives me some hope that i'm on the right track - but obviously I would have legal problems trying to capitalise on a working device. This doesn't worry me, because I believe I have the mathematical principle, and there are different ways to exploit this principle.
I do suspect that many of the gravity wheel patents that we can see have been set up in order to crush any outbreak of running wheels. There is enough rope for lawyers to hang us all. Which is why we should all be very careful if we think we have the principle or a running device.
Look at all the hooplah surround Mylow (magnet motor hero of the month). Frankly, i'm wondering if that dude is a plant to make all free energy researchers look stupid. Or scare them off.
IMO - if we think we have the working principle, we should reduce this to the simplest experiment that would prove the point. This probably won't be a running wheel. Nice if it was, but really - we need to be able to replicate a simple experiment that gives undeniable results.
For example - the basic principle of an electric motor can be demonstrated with a wire taped across a dish of water. A magnet floating on a cork will spin if we energise the wire with a battery and make & break the contacts. Anyone can duplicate this, and it's easy to see how an electric motor could be developed out of such a simple beginning.
IF there is any free energy to be gained from impact (and I don't think there is) then we should be able to experiment with bouncing balls or something that would show a useful effect. This is the kind of idea that is worth talking about. The sooner we disprove all the wrong ideas, the better.
@ Ruggerodk - I guess you have drawn attention to my signature quote because I am suggesting there are some ideas that shouldn't be discussed in public. I don't see a problem with this. The quote says "great minds freely reveal all ideas" - it just says they "discuss ideas", in preference to discussing events or people.
"Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you." (Mathew 7:6)
Good advice, especially for public internet forums.
It's no secret that most of the gravity wheel patents don't give away the basic secret. And yet somebody has bothered to get a patent. That's not a cheap undertaking, and you would have to question why the owner bothered.
I recently found out that that the basic model I am experimenting with actually has been patented before. Which gives me some hope that i'm on the right track - but obviously I would have legal problems trying to capitalise on a working device. This doesn't worry me, because I believe I have the mathematical principle, and there are different ways to exploit this principle.
I do suspect that many of the gravity wheel patents that we can see have been set up in order to crush any outbreak of running wheels. There is enough rope for lawyers to hang us all. Which is why we should all be very careful if we think we have the principle or a running device.
Look at all the hooplah surround Mylow (magnet motor hero of the month). Frankly, i'm wondering if that dude is a plant to make all free energy researchers look stupid. Or scare them off.
IMO - if we think we have the working principle, we should reduce this to the simplest experiment that would prove the point. This probably won't be a running wheel. Nice if it was, but really - we need to be able to replicate a simple experiment that gives undeniable results.
For example - the basic principle of an electric motor can be demonstrated with a wire taped across a dish of water. A magnet floating on a cork will spin if we energise the wire with a battery and make & break the contacts. Anyone can duplicate this, and it's easy to see how an electric motor could be developed out of such a simple beginning.
IF there is any free energy to be gained from impact (and I don't think there is) then we should be able to experiment with bouncing balls or something that would show a useful effect. This is the kind of idea that is worth talking about. The sooner we disprove all the wrong ideas, the better.