Excess Torque Hypothesis : Mechanical Sustainable Imbalance Possibilities ( <>> ) ?

[johannesbender]

True , the fact that the chain is to the side means nothing , its only the forces on each extended arm's point's of contact that slightly changes as the chain settles in to equilibrium or am i perhaps misinterpreting the ramelli behavior when rotating ?

[Fletcher]

True , the fact that the chain is to the side means nothing , its only the forces on each extended arm's point's of contact that slightly changes as the chain settles in to equilibrium or am i perhaps misinterpreting the ramelli behavior when rotating ?

You got it in one jb ..

A single axle / fulcrum for the whole caboodle, with an offset chain .. and it wobbles back and forth until it finds equilibrium of forces and stops for a cuppa ..

The fact that it hunts and finds equilibrium says there is some torque from the chain on the 4 lever arms of the Ramelli it is always in contact with ..

BUT .. there is insufficient torque to lift the chain up and over the top to continue the rotation - just like any ordinary conservative lever-weight OOB concept also has insufficient positive torque to do the same !

[MrVibrating]

Nice try, intelligent design but same old sticking points eh! I'm now convinced this perennial issue of GPE / KE symmetry has to be breakable somehow. If the value of 'height' relative to the wheel could diverge from that of the absolute height relative to ground, or something like this, then you could have a system in which I/O GPE is conserved relative to the wheel's FoR but not relative to ground. I now suspect i've wasted years trying to generate KE gain via PE discounts from N3 breaks, when really i should've just stuck with trying to gain GPE..

I think the biggest clue we may have in that regard is this issue of speed-dependence - the reactive power (in both sign and magnitude as noted at Meresburg) coupled with the possibility of arbitrarily-slow yet powerful operation as alluded to by Bessler, puts some kind of speed-dependent or speed-limited process in the frame as the means by which a given GPE input is worth more KE in the ground frame than it cost from within the wheel's frame.

I'm thinking of running radial displacements as via jacks, but driving them with small weight levers around the perimeter as in your build from the first page. Each of the small GPE outputs will incrementally operate the jack handles by a small angle, progressively lifting the OB weights in a staccato / stop-start fashion. There's obvs no reason to suppose that any symmetry break will arise merely by lifting a big GPE via many smaller GPE outputs, unless there's some kind of effective N3 exploit going on that'll cause FoR shenanigans, and i'm still unclear on just what to try here (usual go-to of variable-MoI components i expect). Dunno, certainly can't plot out a GPE gain on paper even in principle just yet, but hope to at least crack this theoretically this weekend, ie. just identifying which parameters might feasibly be manipulated to make the maths work.. i'm thinking it has to be a divergent FoR on the effective PE cost / KE value of relative 'height' tho.. ie. a symmetry break between the wheel's internal value vs the absolute value relative to ground; input in the wheel's frame, collect in the ground frame via OB.

It seems incontrovertible now that OB torque is the primary momentum source (and sink when oversped), and Occam would suggest that rather than a KE gain from an N3 break being harnessed via symmetric GPE interactions, what we're really looking for is asymmetric GPE interactions as the actual exploit right off the bat.

Now that i have a clearer idea what i'm looking for i feel like a dog with a bone again..

[Fletcher]

Nice try, intelligent design but same old sticking points eh!

Fraid so lol .. but once done and dusted did serve to crystalize my thoughts and catapult me forward onto something else nagging the cortex for a while.

I'm now convinced this perennial issue of GPE / KE symmetry has to be breakable somehow. ... I think the biggest clue we may have in that regard is this issue of speed-dependence - the reactive power (in both sign and magnitude as noted at Meresburg) coupled with the possibility of arbitrarily-slow yet powerful operation as alluded to by Bessler, puts some kind of speed-dependent or speed-limited process in the frame as the means by which a given GPE input is worth more KE in the ground frame than it cost from within the wheel's frame.

i'm thinking it has to be a divergent FoR on the effective PE cost / KE value of relative 'height' tho.. ie. a symmetry break between the wheel's internal value vs the absolute value relative to ground; input in the wheel's frame, collect in the ground frame via OB.

It seems incontrovertible now that OB torque is the primary momentum source (and sink when oversped), and Occam would suggest that rather than a KE gain from an N3 break being harnessed via symmetric GPE interactions, what we're really looking for is asymmetric GPE interactions as the actual exploit right off the bat.

Now that i have a clearer idea what i'm looking for i feel like a dog with a bone again..

Roughly similar thoughts to you MrV except I might describe it differently .. I'm playing around with stealing a bit of the earth's momentum to give to the wheel as a legitimate energy source -- or at least that's the only real sane way to describe what mechanically may happen with this Prime Mover mech. Time will tell if I'm right or if I need to rethink the energy source.

I need an energy source because of this scenario >> say someone were to invent an OU device that used 100 Watts of energy and put out 110 Watts after coping with its own losses. First the perennial question, why not close the loop back to itself to prove the OU ? Next, if I have a surplus 110 Watts why not bank that into a battery and then let the battery fully energize 1 more device and rinse and repeat the set-up. Soon we have a whole world of daisy chained OU devices that only needs 100 Watts to run all our OU devices ?

The point of the story being that gravity isn't energy (as I know you know) yet somehow we need some mechanical means to cause a wheel acceleration and generate and sustain wheel momentum .. and fwiw that sounds awfully like a nascent energy source to me.

Looking forward to your thread and seeing you give that old bone a good old gnawing lol.

................

[Fletcher]

After-thought .. here's my sim of the Ramelli with OOB Chain for those interested .. accuracy set to 100 else it crashes my laptop any lower - takes a while to compute all those moving parts.

[MrVibrating]

.. stealing a bit of the earth's momentum to give to the wheel as a legitimate energy source..]

Like i always say, speed's relative hence so is energy, to whatever the relevant inertial frame, and symmetry of displacement / height to acceleration and velocity is ultimately a matter of CoM via N3 enforcing N1 and thus energy equivalence between all FoR's.. IOW, breaking PE:KE symmetry necessarily involves first breaking some kind of momentum symmetry (which is kind of already implicit in the spectacle of a statorless wheel accelerating). With all the focus on G*t as the momentum source/sink i've probably neglected the possibilities re. Coriolis effects or slingshot manoeuvres etc. which directly couple to earth's resting momentum state. Still not sure that'd get us out of the sustainability woods but if Bessler's system is inherently unsustainable, better we discover how and why here than someone serendipitously rediscovering out in the wild, oblivious to this implicit risk..

[WaltzCee]

This thread is a continuation of the discussion from here .. viewtopic.php?p=170357#170357

. .. .. .