Mechanising the maths

[WaltzCee]

.
.

Is it just me or are you actually getting mechanisms that are increasing speed on their own? I know it's a sim, but well done on the ideas. Cool stuff!

Got my wires crossed there, Jubat. It is obvious MV's model accelerates, & an initial question I had was the energy budget . .. .. .

They're all powered however, just to be clear - when it comes to the real testing phase i'll be logging a shed-load of telemetry, input and output energies calculated and compared independently, until it either resolves to unity or shows some I/O anomaly, which then requires further analysis to eliminate the likely errors etc. So yep, it's cool gaining momentum in an ostensibly-closed system, but there's no suggestion of any energy anomalies yet..

& MV is very aware that's a question that is going to come up.

[MrVibrating]

Hello MrVibrating

A nice and simple concept. Has anyone built this in that last 300 years?

We know a fast moving mass has zero weight at the top of the arch.
It is believed the bottom mass to be double it's weight. By the nature of it's swing.

So it's possible to used the double weight of the bottom mass to lift up the top mass by a greater distance than the bottom mass moves down.

How are you bringing in the top & bottom mass back towards the centre hub?

Regards

You mean the flywheel? It's just a potential component of a system for attaining OU, not any kind of prospect in itself - it's a flywheel that only gains so much velocity, then flattening off but continuing to absorb more momentum by continually increasing its MoI as the springs give way to rising CF force. CF force squares with RPM, but Hooke's law describing springs also squares with displacement, hence the max velocity and max radius of the flywheel converge asymptotically towards some practical limit. In short it's a flywheel that grows fatter not faster as more momentum's added, but also having a peak size and speed. It also smooths over abrupt changes in sign or magnitude of applied torque by automatically producing compensating inertial torques - via the ice-skater effect - as the springs relax or compress in response to changes in CF force.

Over-unity efficiencies can only be designed by treating momentum as the working fluid of a circuit embodying a mathematical solution. To play the energy game, we must first play the momentum game, since conservation of energy - the symmetry between PE and KE - is contingent upon conservation of momentum in enforcing energy-equivalence between all velocity frames. Extrapolating backwards from first principles, a rotating body's KE is an axiomatic function of half its angular inertia times its absolute angular velocity squared - 'excess KE' is a conflicted notion - hence a working solution must fix the unit-energy cost of momentum to accumulate it for less PE outlay than its resulting KE value; this means exploiting the quadratic relationship of KE to velocity by effectively 'spoofing' lower-than-actual velocities in whatever the input workload; as if accelerating from standstill each stroke, in spite of the rising system velocity.. In other words, we need to generate a divergent inertial frame.

Bessler's wheel wasn't just OU relative to the ground / Earth, but relative to all possible velocity frames.

Consider the 'everything's made of little springs' analogy - as energy waves propagate through the matrix the particles bounce off one-another, every one of these microscopic inertial interactions respecting N3 and thus N1; fixing everything to the same unitary reference frame. The is the cage our wheel mechanism needs to escape from..

[MrVibrating]

The last one looks like a bit of an inefficient way to increase rotational speed... It reminds me of a video I see occasionally on youtube, where someone cranks a wheel back and forth which causes the wheel to accelerate faster and faster regardless of its speed. I can't find this video :(

It's just demonstrating that kiiking is possible under CF force alone, but also that this isn't a momentum source / sink like real gravity. It's spun up to a preset speed then the internal rotor's unlocked and allowed to do its thing. As-is, it's just a waste of energy.

The potential however - and the reason it seems like a conceptual breakthrough to me - is that once an OB mechanism's added and in effect, the CF-kiiking mechanism will have access to 'real' momentum - it'll be able to scoop it up as it swings around while changing MoI, and because the torques produced by the ice-skater effect are reactionless, we'll thus have real, meaningful reactionless accelerations / momenta to play with.

This is, inexorably, the working fluid of any viable solution. The trick will be accumulating it at fixed unit-energy cost.

In the past i've tried similar concepts of weighted vMoI's kiiking under gravity and then dumping those momentum gains into the main wheel body's axis by braking or colliding with rimstops etc., always finding that per-cycle momentum yields are inevitably inversely proportionate to per-cycle G-time as a function of RPM in relation to gravity's constant acceleration..

..hence the real potential breakthrough this new approach may offer is in decoupling the available 'G-time' of the kiiking mechanism from that of the OB moment as a function of wheel RPM; bashically, the hunch is that so long as there's an active OB moment there, the CF kiiker can access this real momentum source / sink via the intermediary or proxy of CF force, asynchronously to RPM and thus circumventing the constraint of diminishing per-cycle momentum yields with rising system RPM.. geddit? Each stroke of the CF kiiker has the potential to gain the same amount of momentum, for the same work-done against CF force.

Hence if i can get as far as establishing that effect - of stabilising the kiiking momentum yields invariant of RPM / OB speed - the the final hurdle will be accumulating these momenta until their combined velocity inevitably breaks unity.

So i'm still vague on the details of how to apply it; the first objective is simply to overcome this RPM / momentum yield constraint that's defied all previous attempts. I may just add a simple OB mechanism synced to the background coords that remains perpetually out of balance (at unity of course) just so i can test the main hypothesis which is that CF force can be a proxy or intermediary for tapping into the real ±dp/dt of G*t vicariously, so to speak, this being the whole basis of the prospective exploit..

[MrVibrating]

MRVibrating , you know the laws energy cannot be created nor destroyed , I'm sorry to sound negative here , I wish you find something , but I have my doubts and it is not doubts in you but doubts in violation of those laws , i get momentum is not KE though and KE is not momentum though but my misgivings come from where is the energy for the CF coming from though.

If you go back through some of my rambling in this thread, i'm under no illusions of how CoE applies, having studied the fine-print for some time..

A conflicted approach is obviously pathological science, the epitome of a fool's errand. But i've learned the laws of physics as they must apply to a solution, and the reason i've not been posting here is that i've been wrestling with the fundamentals i'm describing in this thread; the solution has to be comprised of things already in my possession - there cannot be anything fundamentally new i've missed, so what i've been missing must be some permutation of things already known.

If you can follow the mathematical logic i'm espousing, the reason for my renewed enthusiasm is that a meaningful door has opened; a penny's dropped: so long as the system's gravitating, CF force may be a proxy for RPM-invariant dp/dt yields. That's money, yo..

ETA: "look after the pennies.."

[MrVibrating]

Hello MrVibrating

There is more to exploring 'The Quest' than people declare.

Some of the process is building a better understanding of our skills, tool,
devices and software modelling products.

I expect an accelerating device that increase rotation will appear as a breaker of LAWs at first.

For now we can only assist in building our ability to communicate with good graces
and help other in their development.

Regards

Thank you. The analogy i like is that a climber approaches a cliff face as the start of the journey, where everyone else sees a cul de sac.

I suspect that the solution we seek necessarily involves grounding stray momenta via gravity - especially when the system's under load and thus actually being useful, since this inevitably means exchanging momentum with some form of stator - and that uncontrolled proliferation of such systems is unsustainable; thus necessitating global cooperation to harness in a coordinated fashion that won't alter the planet's resting state of motion. A sink-or-swim ultimatum; we can have it all, so long as we cooperate. I suspect that all of the water that inundated the NW European coastline on Christmas day 1717 was inadvertently pumped there by Herr Bessler over the previous weeks' demo at Castle Weisenstein, the storm surge due to sloshing of the atmosphere and oceans in response to the five-week long anomalous 'upwards' acceleration of the entire planet relative to that location..

"Buy a perpetual motion wheel, get a free doomsday machine!"

Arguably it wouldn't really alter the status quo - we're all used to living in a Mexican stand-off - so much as focus attention on solutions..

[MrVibrating]

..a further point to bear in mind in relation to the Weissenstein demo / Christmas storms coincidence is that there's additional gain in the system from normal solar radiation; hence think 'butterfly effect' wherein small perturbations become amplified by environmental stochastic processes.. Then there's the Lunar cycle and its tidal influence to consider - any small fluctuation in the resting tidally-locked state may unlock further potential energies throughout the system..

But just from first principles; if and when a divergent inertial frame interacts with any other velocity frame, the entire system becomes part of that divergence.. Or to put it another way, introduce a system that doesn't conserve momentum to an otherwise-closed system, and now that entire system's open to whatever the non-conservative momentum source is open to. The momentum of the larger net system is inevitably being altered.

If we further suppose that all 'normal' velocity frames are energy-equivalent, that all ambient inertial interactions respect N3 and thus that the net momentum of the entire universe is constant and essentially nil - ie. the Copernican principle of there being no preferential reference frame - then our unilaterally-accelerating wheel, and any subsequent stray momenta it offloads or gravitationally-induces to the Earth, effectively endows the universe with a net direction, it's net momentum no longer zero.

Fundamentally per KE, heat and relativistic momentum of photons, energy per se has equivalent components of mass and velocity, and thus an OU (PE:KE asymmetric) system is producing stray momenta that are a function of those same components, only multiplied differently per the vis-viva distinction. There's simply no getting away from that.

Hopefully such effects can be reliably mitigated by counterposing complimentary pairs of systems, but that's getting ahead for now.. We should maintain healthy circumspection in relation to this implicit responsibility however..

[agor95]

Hi MrVibrating

I have read your last few posts in full. Not normal for me but it's making sense!

I realise one of my animations was inspired by your concept.
I did not recognise it at the time.

Regards

[MrVibrating]

Found time this afternoon to try adding an OB system. Observing the KISS principle for now i've left out the flywheel, directly driving the rolling OB system with the CF kiiker via an inverter gear (since both rotate in the same direction):

..because there needs to be CF before anything else can happen, there's a startup motor on the wheel axis for its first 180°, coasting from thereon. All further input work / energy is supplied by the CF kiiker's actuators. Since it'll just keep on accelerating forever as-is, it's set to pause upon reaching max GPE.

I took a measurement just using the same accuracy settings i built it with:

acts = 1207.501735
startup KE = 253.8
final KE = 1618.348
KE gain = 1364.548
GPE gain = 49.033
net gain = 1413.581
net out / in = 117%

..now running higher-precision measurements - which takes time - so probably not worth getting too excited yet.. Tantalising first run tho eh?

[MrVibrating]

Hi MrVibrating

I have read your last few posts in full. Not normal for me but it's making sense!

I realise one of my animations was inspired by your concept.
I did not recognise it at the time.

Regards

I admit it seems a convoluted train of logic even to me; the bottom line is this attempt to fix the unit-energy cost of angular momentum from gravity and time to prevent its sum from squaring with RPM like the resulting KE value.. Thus to thermodynamically decouple input and output energies by harnessing reactionless momenta to thus produce a divergent inertial frame.

Which is nothing new - this has been the plan for at least the last five years, IIRC. CF force as a proxy dp/dt for gravity in an OB system appears to fulfil that crucial missing link for decoupling momentum yields from system RPM that's been eluding me for so long..

[MrVibrating]

Instead of plotting the power * time or force * displacement integrals as detected from the actuators themselves - which may be susceptible to inadvertent interference from the actuators' controller logic - i'm going to make a more foolproof metric my calculating the instantaneous centrifugal force acting on the vMoI masses individually as a function of their mass * radius * objective angular velocity squared, integrated over their radial displacements. This will give an accurate calculation from first principles of net input work performed against CF force, that'll be impervious to error.

Expect unity minus losses, and anything else'll be a bonus eh..

[MrVibrating]

Just finished a higher resolution run:

acts = 1203.113401
startup KE = 253.8
final KE = 1584.937
KE gain = 1331.137
GPE gain = 49.033
net gain = 1380.17
net out / in = 1.147

So, slightly less input work logged although substantially unchanged there; it's calculated a slightly larger decrease in KE gain, and of course no change in GPE gain, so 114% is the current direct measurement.

Next i'll recalculate the theoretical amount of CF-PE involved, independently of any data output from the actuators. This will be the bottom line regardless, so if that metric agrees with the figures output from the actuators then we may have lift-off..

[MrVibrating]

LOL slow-drip but i couldn't resist - the power * time integral is calculated from the actuators' tension force times their radial velocity, integrated over time, so as an alternate direct-measure i've just taken their tension force times radial displacement, which comes out at 1207.24452 J!

Next, the calculated theoretical limit..

[MrVibrating]

Well the theoretical limit seems to have almost killed it:

CF-PE = -1372.507358
startup KE = 253.8
final KE = 1584.937
KE gain = 1331.137
GPE gain = 49.033
net gain = 1380.17
net out / in = 1.0056

Excess: 7.66 J

Not to be sniffed at if real of course, but scaled to the I/O energies they're near unity.. a little over half a percent gain.

Will have to keep tinkering to see if there's anything really here or not..

[Tarsier79]

Are you inserting energy to cycle the CF "kiiking" weights? It looks like it as they look like they are accelerating unnaturally.

[MrVibrating]

Yes as i've already made clear the input workload is performed against CF force by the varying MoI in the center - more work is performed pulling the masses in against CF force, than CF force performs in pulling them back out. Additionally, the resulting positive inertial torques are being directly harnessed to drive the rolling OB system, so, giving it angular momentum / rotKE, but also causing it to climb, gaining GPE, in turn converting back into more angular momentum and rotKE.

All KE is metered using the single 'kinetic()' meter, the GPE is plotted alongside and their total shown as 'net energy'. The CF-PE integral i've already explained - it can only be more accurate than any reliance on direct metering. That should be all bases covered; not claiming the gain's real yet, i just haven't managed to make it go away yet. Give it time eh.

In the version below i've cleaned up the code, made the thing bi-directional, and upped all the masses to 10 kg:

..as well as making it more stable, the net gain there is now 1,578 J.

Mind, that's still only about half a percent OU, on balance (32 kJ input!) so it's still a piddling effect, if now somewhat exaggerated. So far, raising sim precision down to glacial speeds (1e-9 integrator error, 16 digits of output data per value, 32,000 frames / 21 secs) only shaves zeros off the same result from coarser accuracy settings. No spikes in the CF data - which again, is a first-principle calc in parallel to the sim rather than trusting data recorded from the actuators themselves (which also show a gain regardless). For now i can't say whether it's real or false; more work's required!