MTM5

[MrVibrating]

Now the full basic telemetry is in place:



..it's now ready for accurately quantifying e/p at all stages throughout an interaction.

[Fletcher]

Hey Mr V .. I think part of what jb was saying, and has been said before, is that in the frame of reference you show above because gravity is a field of potential then the OU results trends you are getting should hold true with gravity ON or OFF ? ..

IINM Inertia will still be the same, Cf's will still be the same - gravity force will give and take away equally as it cycles up and down etc ..

Because if not so, then any practical embodiment of the theory will need to be parked out in far orbit ..

[Robinhood46]

Because if not so, then any practical embodiment of the theory will need to be parked out in far orbit ..

I haven't been following every word, so i am probably talking nonsense, but could we not just run it with a vertical axle as apposed to horizontal?

[Fletcher]

Good point RH .. then it's like the horizontal spinning chairs ride at the fair ground or a carousal ..

I'm more about testing the sim results with gravity ON to see if it is different from gravity OFF - if different delve into possibly why only horizontal or out in space ? ..

[Robinhood46]

I'm wondering if gravity ON will not show a fluctuation in the readings. If it is the case, it may help to understand what's going on. If gravity accentuates the effect on one side and reduces the effect on the other, i would have thought it would point us in the right direction.
I know the price of fair ground rides has gone up a lot, and spacecraft launches have come down a bit, but i still think i saved you a few quid.

[johannesbender]

Hey Mr V .. I think part of what jb was saying, and has been said before, is that in the frame of reference you show above because gravity is a field of potential then the OU results trends you are getting should hold true with gravity ON or OFF ? ..

IINM Inertia will still be the same, Cf's will still be the same - gravity force will give and take away equally as it cycles up and down etc ..

Because if not so, then any practical embodiment of the theory will need to be parked out in far orbit ..

Yes i am talking in general that it is known fact according to the laws that the mechanical energy must remain conserved when there are no losses like air resistance and friction , the fact that gravity is active or not active is not the deciding factor for whether 100% energy (unity) is achievable or not , the losses from non conservative interactions (conversions) are mathematicly according to the laws what prevents unity from being achievable , these laws arent just oppinion or point of views (until proven otherwise) , so people out there reading should not think gravity is a deal breaker .

[MrVibrating]

Hey Mr V .. I think part of what jb was saying, and has been said before, is that in the frame of reference you show above because gravity is a field of potential then the OU results trends you are getting should hold true with gravity ON or OFF ? ..

IINM Inertia will still be the same, Cf's will still be the same - gravity force will give and take away equally as it cycles up and down etc ..

Because if not so, then any practical embodiment of the theory will need to be parked out in far orbit ..

No it can be made effectively impervious to gravity even when rotating vertically - if only due to the much greater forces that can be loaded into a spring for example, but also there's the possibility of harmonic resonance with a GPE cycle, not necessarily chaotic, with the right tuning of parameters.

The effect works equally well kiiking under gravity too remember, so gravity could be the applied force, or just an incidental zero-sum in the cycle. It's best left off if not in use, for now at least, to avoid complicating the analysis. And not least, to avoid contaminating the pure depravity of using inertia and time as both momentum and energy source / sink, bwahaha shakes-fist-at-imaginary-antagonists etc.

TBH i was considering orbiting power stations as one way to avoid grounding stray torques.. Hopefully that'll prove an unnecessary extravagance tho..

[MrVibrating]

Using the 'completed' sim, i set up a single-cycle run, beginning at 1 rad/s wheel speed and 1 rad/s kiiking speed, then allowed it to settle in over 1 cycle before pausing and editing to remove all priming code.

Constant wheel velocity was chosen as this consistently resolves the kiiking action to the KE rise, the gain being entirely on the wheel motor integral. This symmetry of the kiiking workload to the KE rise obviously represents a natural baseline config for evaluating how the disunity arises and develops.

The resulting sim isn't intended to be further edited, although wheel acceleration and weight spin-up speeds are still useable for further tests on the same baseline config. The intention is simply to streamline the config for analysis of the data.

So we begin with a 'clean' interaction, free of start-up jiggles and already well into its stride, preset at max freq for the full single cycle run, which will be divided up into each of its four strokes: spin up and spin down whist falling, then reverse spin up and down whilst rising.

No rush on any of this - at each step, i don't intend to move on to the next quadrant until the current one's understood. The objective here is full comprehension. Clarity. Closure.

So here's Q1, the initial spin-up whilst descending from 12 o' clock down to 9 o' clock:



I've pulled the delta net momentum as well as the usual stats but this obviously isn't exhaustive, we can measure anything in relation to anything else. I've dropped the Pt integrals for now as the Ta ones have been consistently more accurate thus far.

So right from the get-go, at the culmination of the first spin-up stroke, we're already comfortably OU, and the gain is in KE form; we've performed 17.7 J of work to harness 21.5 J of KE, so we're 6.77 J up.

As ever, since 'excess KE' is a mathematical misnomer, we must have harvested a 6.77 J PE discount during this first stroke.

Not for the first time, we're seeing indications that a 'full cycle', as currently implemented, may be somewhat redundant, and unnecessarily over-complicating the ultimate objective..

For instance, suppose the initial two strokes are omitted completely; instead we just drop passively, but then still perform the reverse-spin and brake when lifting: these two strokes alone appear to be (and i could be wrong) independently responsible for the greater part of the disunity..

And it's easy to see why - the reverse spin-up going into Q3 applies counter-torque that assists the re-lift against CF force, all the way up to 3 o'clock; so do we really need the first two strokes at all? Something to try in the near future eh.

In the meantime however, we're 145% OU halfway through the drop, following this first stroke in Q1.

Open call: Explain the gain!

Win, lose or draw: i ain't budging off this spot until this first quadrant has a satisfactory resolution. All the pieces are there - anything you think is missing we can add. What to make of it?

Real or error, why has this disunity arisen, and how might we go about empirically quantifying its causes?

[MrVibrating]

Here's a slow anim with 15 secs pause on start and finish so folks can pull their own numbers:



We have the anatomy of a gain laid out before us, the opportunity to measure, poke or prod anything.. a full autopsy. I'm being too macabre - call it an audit. We're auditors, and today's a red-letter day, our work cut out. Think you have a chance of grappling with OU? Here's a free shot..

[MrVibrating]

Realised that intricately disentangling rotational and translational momenta from their KE equations was needlessly complex (and confusing to debug), so here's a more-accurate rendition of the momentum distributions (no effect on the gain or anything else):



..displaying accurate momentum is critical at this point, as it ain't gonna resolve otherwise.

The obvious place to start the investigation is the suppression of a reciprocal N3 exchange between the accelerating weight spin versus the kiiking rotor, caused by CF force; torquing the weight applies counter-torque and counter-momentum that both slows the descent, protracting the drop period and thus the window for gaining momentum from CF force and time, whilst sinking counter-momentum there.

The KE gain (PE discount) has to be arising there..

Revised sims attached.

[MrVibrating]

Here's a 1 rad/s relative acceleration of the kiiking motor with no other motion:



Straight away something interesting becomes apparent:

• notice how the angular momentum imparted to the rotor is balanced in relation to the translational momentum of the weight

• however the angular component applied to the weight appears to be unreciprocated..

The net angular and net linear dKE's are equal, but it seems interesting that the momentum and counter-momentum are splitting between alternate dimensions, angular vs linear, with this seemingly unbalanced angular remainder on the weight..

[MrVibrating]

Need more telemetry to follow the money here:



That's gotta be everything but the kitchen sink, for now.. This has to be enough to put the pieces together..

I'm gonna run that cycle above at max freq and once again use its ending point as the beginning of clean cycle to continue the audit of quadrant 1..

[MrVibrating]

Here's the full cycle of the clean run:


right-click to full-size in a new tab

dKE = +2.95982058

kPt = 2.955770223
kTa = 2.959268487

wPt = -4.613934029
wTa = -4.613934031

net in = 2.959268487
net out = 2.95982058 + 4.613934029 = 7.573754609

diff = +4.614486122
CoP 2.56

So next i'm gonna focus back in on quadrant 1 there, see if this won't start piecing together already..

[MrVibrating]

Here's the slow anim of that:



dKE = 21.47534904
CF-PE = -0.999982091

kPt = 8.16353934
kTa = 8.16410627

wPt = 5.545963755
wTa = 5.545963753

net in = 0.999982091 + 8.16410627 + 5.545963755 = 14.710052116
net out = 21.47534904

diff = 6.765296924
CoP = 1.46

..same result as yesterday, although now that we have the full cycle for comparison we can see that despite only making 57% of the full-cycle CoP, the actual Joule value of the gain is greater.. and all KE.

But the objective for now remains; trying to unpick how and why there's any gain at all..

[Fletcher]

Mornin MrV .. boy, you been busy lol ..

Just to recap for those dropping in intermittently like me - in theory it is a very simple sim with gravity OFF - there are only 3 disk/circle bodies to the sim - plus 3 motors (1 turned off atm that primes the green Kiiking disk for a set directional start (gives it a tiny starting momentum bias) - the other motors are 1 at the center of the large disk which maintains a pre-set steady unfluctuating velocity - the other motor is attached at the center of the blue Kiiking weight which has controlled velocity inputs from a formula ..

IIRC => Kiiking Motor - velocity control formula

-input[36]*(sin(body[5].p.r-body[1].p.r))

Then there is a swarm of metrics i.e. Outputs, some of which MrV has made, and all wrangled into some coherent story that he is trying to distill down to find the one thing that makes the difference - can it be real, or is it some metrics inconsistency or failure etc ? ..

Suggestions .. you don't actually need the priming motor imo (I know it is turned OFF for the 1/4 run) and make it even more simple - you could just open the properties of the green kiiking disk an enter a bias velocity into the Vtot field etc - the sim will start with that bias already in action (same as using the primer motor IINM) ..

Next - you could make your sim do simulated Work to see how this effects the COP outputs your metrics are showing ..

Gravity is OFF - but you could turn on Air Frictions as a quick and dirty approximation of doing external Work and load it up to see if that effects any outputs i.e. trends .. you could add pin frictions to the sim for the same purpose - and if it passed all that with flying colours you could build a 'friction sink' - this is throwing the kitchen sink at the sim - e.g. a spring loaded wedge that gets forced under the outer disk for example, and a crank to it etc .. IOW's increasing the friction load to the sim to approximate real Work ..

Who said disrupting science doctrine was easy .. they never built sims lol ..

ETA .. the kitchen sink friction sink is a brake analogue - you could also just force the wedge against the disk rim with a fake force pushing it ..

You know your sim backwards and forwards having built it, and that's a positive ..