Poss. 2nd symmetry break?

[Art]

...coming back at this from the Bessler end of the problem:

- A central tenet of this thesis is that the only way to generate excess KE from within the framework of classical mechanics is by exploiting the standard 1/2mV^2 function, but in application to an effective asymmetric inertial interaction, and resulting divergent or 'runaway' inertial frame of reference. Therefore, so the theory goes, if Bessler's witness testimonies are genuine, then this must be, by definition, what his machines were doing. There simply are no other contenders for a candidate energy-generating principle, because both inertial and gravitational interactions are definitively symmetry-bound within their own domains; ultimately, because mass and gravity are constants, not time dependent. Only an effective violation of Newton's 3rd and thus 1st laws could introduce the requisite axis around which a time-dependent input / output differential could be made manifest, even in principle. It really is this elementary.


- All of the evidence for Bessler's wheels is consistent with this hypothesis; their requisite verticality, uniformity of rotation of complete system - ie. including whatever internal mass was being used for reaction mass, since there were no external stators, and Bessler himself confirmed that "in a true PMM, everything must go around together"... in a single statement, eliminating any other possibility (for instance, such a condition would not apply to a putative gravitational energy asymmetry).


- We are thus looking for a gravity-assisted effective N3 violation - ie., using gravity to cancel or invert the sign of counter-momentum. Doing this is trivially simple; it happens automatically when we apply a 9.81 N force vertically between two inertias, at least one of which is subject to gravitation. There really is no ingenuity or complexity involved in this feat, it's just a bog-standard inertial interaction, and a bog-standard gravitational interaction, coupled together at the same time. This simple, basic condition causes the inertial interaction to produce unilateral momentum.

- To grab that asymmetric distribution of momentum, and consolidate it over successive cycles, requires literally hammering it into the net system, via controlled collisions. That is, the accelerated mass, from the asymmetric inertial interaction, has to subsequently share that momentum back with the 'non-accelerated' mass; speeding it up a little, and slowing itself down a little, meeting at a new, higher, net system velocity. And so over successive cycles of reactionless acceleration and collision, the net system momentum drags itself up by its bootstraps.

- It is therefore a foregone conclusion that the impacts heard emanating from the descending side of Bessler's wheels were performing this function.

- Either the net system was being unilaterally accelerated against these weights, or else, these weights were being unilaterally accelerated against the net system. Either way, the subsequent collisions were consolidating that momentum asymmetry into a net rise in system momentum per cycle.


- Wolff's impression was that the weights somehow landed with more momentum than would be endowed by their falling.. ie., that their descent was powered.

- The implication is thus that there's some way of propelling a weight downwards, either without applying counter-torque in the first place, or else, actually inverting the sign of that counter-torque, or its resulting counter-momentum. Either way, gravity has to be the key to achieving the asymmetric inertial interaction that was responsible for producing the asymmetric momentum distribution.

- All of these conclusions seem self-evident and axiomatic. Everything seems to cross-reference consistently. We really do have all our ducks in a row here.


...so maybe the biggest clue, with regards to how best to proceed in the context of this knowledge, is Wolff's impression of excess momentum exchanged in these impacts on the descending side of the wheel.

We also know that some kind of internal store of PE is required, to power these inertial interactions. And accordingly, Bessler was also seen to preload a spring by pushing downwards into the wheel. This would imply that the spring was acting in the radial plane, and while it remains possible that its attached loads were operated in some other plane via pulleys, the simplest implication would be that they supplied an effective centripetal force to a radially-translating mass... Something that is forced inwards, against any inherent inclinations to stay outwards..

Thus the lucky 8 ball of my dubious intuitions would seem to be flailing in a clear direction - what if these asymmetric inertial interactions are initiated in the first instance by radial translations; ie. the 'ice-skater effect'?


I've noted previously how these 'inertial torques' are effective N3 exceptions in their own right - the torque is caused by conservation of angular momentum in a changing MoI, without an accompanying instantaneous counter-torque being applied back to the system; rather, the corresponding counter-torque is delayed until such time as the mass is moved back out to its former radius.

Hence a gravity-assisted exploit of the ice-skater principle would seem a strong candidate solution. As such, there would be nothing magical about the weights landing with momentum in excess of their corresponding GPE, as suggested by Wolff. Rather, the trick would lie in gravitationally attenuating their deceleration upon re-extension...

For example, what might happen if the masses are both retracted and re-extended on the descending side of the wheel? So, being forced inwards whilst descending, to then travel back up and around at that retracted radius, and then only being re-extended when they arrive back for their second descent... and so each mass moving in and back out on alternate rotations, and only changing radius during the descent phase..?

As such, one full cycle of one such interaction would require 720° of rotation. We could slide the weights in and out upon independently-articulated armatures, able to rotate with some degree of independence from the wheel and each other... but also, able to be locked to the wheel.

For instance, suppose we pull a mass inwards whilst its armature is locked to the wheel, and so applying 'inertial torque' to the net system... then when the same mass comes back around for its second descent, its armature is unlocked from the wheel, and so allowed to decelerate as the mass extends - and be subsequently re-accelerated by gravity - independently of the net system..?

Whilst such inertial torques conserve net momentum (indeed are caused by it), perhaps their juxtaposition with gravitational torques provides opportunity for some kind of 'rectification' trick..


For now, we still have an outstanding candidate in the form of the active-lift/passive drop variant of the above configs - i think - charging the flywheel when the weight's rising, rather than when it's falling.. but like i say, this seems mechanically awkward..


Incidentally, there's another silly idea that's been playing over in the back of my mind - throw a weight upwards on the descending side of a wheel, to be caught by an identical mechanism descending around the wheel from above.. or else, a ratchet mechanism. Sorta like a hamster wheel effect, but with a really fast hamster, like maybe a Roborovski, on quite a heavy wheel, type stuff..

The interesting point would be that the counterforce from propelling the weight upwards produces positive torque on the net system... meanwhile, gravity is effectively reversing or at least mitigating the counter-momentum being applied to the hamsters, i mean weights, braking, if not fully inverting their 'upwards' momentum. It's ultimately a different shot at the same fundamental concept, of accumulating asymmetric momentum, causing a corresponding input work / output KE disunity.


One of these approaches, or maybe a slight variation on them, has to be the form of the solution. Each eliminated possibility leaves an ever-dwindling range of alternatives, stepping stones to an inexorable conclusion.. the question is not 'how to create KE?' - nature already furnishes us with a perfectly adequate mechanism, KE=1/2mV^2. The issue is simply how we go about sharp-elbowing our way up the V^2 line. We already know, by definition, that this implies playing with inertial interactions - you wanna accelerate something, you need to do so against something else.. thus the possibility of a KE gain reduces to applying gravity to manipulate the conservation of momentum of an otherwise-closed system of interacting masses... create a divergent inertial FoR and from thereon you can't help but 'create' KE. Can barely move without doing so.

Thus i maintain that this is a perfectly simple problem, eminently tractable, with an easy, straightforward and totally self-explanatory solution. We're just one Mendeleyevian dream, one TMS or peyote session away from seeing what's right in front of us, i'm certain of it.. and there's really very few pieces to the puzzle - the input and output integrals of an inertial interaction, and of a gravitational one; integrals of momentum especially, over those of energy in the first instance. From that asymmetry, we board the V^2 escalator to free KE..

Good Stuff Mr 5 on P5 of P5 ! : )

Yes , I think If we get Besslers wheel going mechanically , - This is how it will be explained !

----

There appears to be a problem in the computations though if I'm seeing it clearly in your post dated May 1st.11.37Am.

Quote :- "- since the rotor is brought to a halt, we can reset its MoI for free, sans CF or counter-torque (ie. incurring no negative inertial torque from moving back out) "

-----Dunno about that !

Changing the MoI of a mass or system necessarily involves an energy consumption involved in moving the component parts of the weight or system either towards or away from each other around their common locus.

There is a cost to move a mass a finite distance in space . Think - force needs to be applied to mass against its intrinsic inertia to give it momentum to get to it's new location (relative to the common locus) and then after a sufficient interval a force to counteract that momentum and bring it to a stop at its new location must also necessarily be applied .

The energy for this movement can only come through the weight / system's attachment to the wheel .

I believe the energy transfer must happen through the interaction of the "inertias" of the weight or system (not the MoI of the weight or system but the "intrinsic" inertia of the mass or system ) in direct reaction with the "inertia" (momentum) of the wheels angular rotation.

Quote :- " we can reset its MoI for free" , - - I'm pretty sure that can't be done , But the actual energy cost may be small enough that it still allows you to get a gain .

I have no idea how you would calculate or sim it though , - just thought I would pass the problem on to an expert who might :)

[MrVibrating]

If the actuator speed is increased to 2 m/s, the masses are drawn across the full 2 meter diameter of the rotor over the 1 second period:



..i had expected that the inevitable negative torque from re-extending the masses whilst still rotating would not be desirable, however the results speak for themselves - we get even more height out of our 9.81 p of initial momentum; it now rises by 3.85 meters.

So, how much free-momentum-from-gravity does that work out to now? We could just calculate it from the GPE, but let's actually watch it unfold:



...notice that when the sim pauses after 1 second has elapsed, both systems - the passive one on the left, as well as the active one on the right - have regained their 9.81 p of initial momentum... again, observing this momentum / time symmetry.

However, in order for the 'active' system to get back down to its initial height of -5 meters, it requires a further 250 milliseconds of freefall...

..and during that extra 1/4 of a second, the system is still gaining 9.81 p/s...

..hence upon arriving back at its starting position, it now has 6.13981 p on the rotor, and also on the weight, so 12.27962 p total momentum.

Compared to the 9.81 p that was used during the lift, we've gained:

12.27 / 9.81 = 1.25 or 125% more momentum output than input, proportionate to the 25% extension on the drop time, compared to the lift time.


So rather than being detrimental to the effect, the anticipated negative torque from re-extending the MoI whilst still lifting, appears to be beneficial.

Why might this be? This apparent paradox seems interesting enough in its own right to warrant further investigation..

The result of it though is the reappearance of this 'magic' 125% margin, this time in relation to momentum rather than energy. "Five quarters", 5/4, possibly correlating with the Toys Page, as previously conjectured..?

What would be the consequence for our net energy efficiency if we gain 25% more momentum each cycle? Since net system mass and inertia is constant, an accumulating excess momentum can only be expressed as rising net system velocity - hopefully producing the "divergent inertial frame" OU depends upon. Hence compounding a 25% momentum gain over four consecutive cycles should cause a doubling of net system velocity, and thus a quadrupling of the KE value of work done inside the system, relative to the ground.


So the task now is to find a way to loop this kind of interaction, whilst banking and consolidating the momentum gains over repeated cycles.. Doesn't necessarily need to be a fully-fledged build design yet, just a physically-plausible process of repeating the cycle, whilst accumulating the momentum gains..

And just to emphasise this point - the whole angular / linear / spooling weight scheme here is designed purely to help delineate the interaction, ie. it's optimised only as a maximally-simple test rig. An implementation of these findings could look like pretty much anything, with weighted levers and angular displacements instead of spooling linear ones..

Now that i've got what i wanted out of this config, hopefully things can start evolving towards more practical designs..

The other outstanding issue is that i need to come up with an accurate if not-too-tedious method of integrating the work done in varying the MoI, by whatever means this is achieved.

The initial energy here is 24.04 J, and the final energy is 37.62 J. I've little doubt that the 13.58 J difference is all work done by the actuator, since this is not somewhere i'd look for an energy anomaly.. but blind reckoning defeats the purpose of everything i'm doing..

[MrVibrating]

Good Stuff Mr 5 on P5 of P5 ! : )

Yes , I think If we get Besslers wheel going mechanically , - This is how it will be explained !

----

There appears to be a problem in the computations though if I'm seeing it clearly in your post dated May 1st.11.37Am.

Quote :- "- since the rotor is brought to a halt, we can reset its MoI for free, sans CF or counter-torque (ie. incurring no negative inertial torque from moving back out) "

-----Dunno about that !

Changing the MoI of a mass or system necessarily involves an energy consumption involved in moving the component parts of the weight or system either towards or away from each other around their common locus.

There is a cost to move a mass a finite distance in space . Think - force needs to be applied to mass against its intrinsic inertia to give it momentum to get to it's new location (relative to the common locus) and then after a sufficient interval a force to counteract that momentum and bring it to a stop at its new location must also necessarily be applied .

The energy for this movement can only come through the weight / system's attachment to the wheel .

I believe the energy transfer must happen through the interaction of the "inertias" of the weight or system (not the MoI of the weight or system but the "intrinsic" inertia of the mass or system ) in direct reaction with the "inertia" (momentum) of the wheels angular rotation.

Quote :- " we can reset its MoI for free" , - - I'm pretty sure that can't be done , But the actual energy cost may be small enough that it still allows you to get a gain .

I have no idea how you would calculate or sim it though , - just thought I would pass the problem on to an expert who might :)

Cheers for the thoughts mate! In the config in question, the rotor has just coasted to a halt - having been braked by raising the weight against gravity.

Hence we can move the mass radially on the stationary flywheel, changing its MoI, without any interference from CF/CP, and without incurring any torques or counter-torques. Obviously, we still have to input energy to move the masses in a straight line, but this energy is conserved, not 'spent' performing work against some force field.

So the weight spools upwards, whilst we input some additional energy by squeezing the MoI on the rotor. The system has only been given sufficient momentum for the weight to rise for 1 second - since the rate of change of momentum is 9.81 p per second, regardless of whether the weight's falling up or down, and irrespective of whether all of the system mass is gravitating or not, the 4.905 p each of momentum on rotor + weight is just enough for 1 second's worth of vertical flight, after which all of its momentum is expended, its KE converted to PE. Then we just drop it again, letting it fall back down to its initial height, whilst the rotor stays at max radius.

In the most recent variation above, the 'reset' - moving the masses back out again - occurs whilst the lift is still in progress, hence the weights are moving out under some degree of CF, hence a negative workload, which we would expect to be taking energy out of the system, directly from RKE, and thus limiting the remainder able to convert to GPE. And yet bizarrely, this is not what appears to happen - instead we get even more GPE out of that same 9.81 p / sec lift..

The sensible assumption at this stage is of course that all of the additional GPE has been fully paid for by the work done in varying the MoI like this. I have yet to accurately measure this, but regardless, this is not where i'm hoping to make energy. Rather, the gain should take the form of the value of the accumulating momentum in relation to its cost of generation, or else the internal vs external KE values of internal work done - ie. something has to be accelerated in the first place, in order for its cost of acceleration to be less than its value.


I think the most lucid demonstration so far of what the gain will look like - and also, why i believe sims should be just as capable of showing it as pen and paper - is the config a few pages back where a rotor is simply torqued at 9.81 N-m against a falling mass as a stator. There, the RKE gain is entirely equal to the GPE change, no hint of any energy gain, but the interesting aspect is that despite this equality, no actual work (in terms of mechanical acceleration) is performed by gravity during the drop - instead, the system momentum only increases by the 9.81 p of work input by the motor... yet the integral of its torque times angle is ~40 J, whilst the resulting change in RKE of the rotor is ~140 J.

So basically, an energy gain will look just like that, only without the corresponding GPE deficit.


It's all early days still, just prepping the ground, putting together the toolkit.. the real breakthrough i think is this asymmetric exchange of momentum with gravity in an otherwise energy-symmetric GPE interaction. The inspiration for the thread was to try to reverse it - make it pay out more momentum, rather than paying an excess into it as i was doing at the beginning. With that now accomplished, i suspect if i repeat the previous (admittedly course) calculations of a chained series of these interactions, an OU result seems almost inevitable... 25% momentum gain per lift/drop cycle! Assuming only that this momentum is conserved, and that CF needn't rise with increasing net system RPM (as demonstrated last night), it should be all but in the bag... just a matter of bringing it all together in an elegant design.

[MrVibrating]

Final thoughts tonight... Bessler said he could design a wheel that rotated very slowly but with great force, whilst emitting a "steady chatter" (paraphrasing), implying many interactions per cycle, presumably with high speeds and small displacements. So that would mean there's a way of doing this multiple times over a small angle of net system rotation, meaning a full system rotation is not required for gain per se - rather, it can be produced over arbitrarily-small angular increments. This would seem consistent with a momentum / time symmetry being key to the exploit - reducing the period by a factor of ten likewise reduces the momentum and energy deltas proportionately. However although this will result in much smaller numbers, since they're all ultimately enumerated by 9.81, the values should be easily distinguished above 'noise' - for example a value close to 0.4905 is recognisable as 1/2 * 0.981 etc., so it should be possible to work comfortably with much smaller quantities than whole kilograms, seconds and meters..

[MrVibrating]

Minor update:

Tested various strategies to try to raise the efficiency beyond 1.25 - basically reducing the MoI by various degrees during the lift, including sliding the masses straight through the axle and out the other side, back to their initial radius, just on opposite sides, as well as out to further radii (ie. up to twice the initial MoI), and shorter radii (ie. moving halfway back out, instead of all the way, and likewise for 1/4 and 3/4 radii).

All these tests produced less optimal results. Therefore, peak efficiency appears to correlate to fully retracting and then re-extending the MoI back to its initial value, during the lift period, for a 25% gain in momentum, from gravity.


I managed to find one condition that raises this slightly further, to 1.278:

- Where the radial translation speed is equal to twice the radius per second (ie. so the masses cross the full diameter during the 1 second lift period), they cross dead center at 500 ms.

- If the masses are mounted in regular slot joints instead of keyed slots, they remain free to rotate about their own axes. Hence when they reach the exact center, there is actually no mass rotating on the rotor - its MoI, momentum and KE all thus go to zero (the 'vanishing point' effect i was playing with some time ago).

- At this point, halfway into the lift at 500 ms, exactly half of the system momentum has gone - the weight has 4.905 p of upwards momentum, but as noted above, the rotor has zero momentum. So, leaving the masses parked in the center of the rotor, we allow the weight to burn off that 4.905 p by continuing to fall upwards for another 500 ms, effectively on its own (since the rotor has no inertia and thus undergoes no change in momentum despite the fact that it's still changing speed, being decelerated along with the weight spooling off of it)..

- Thus after the full second has elapsed, the weight has been lifted, this time slightly further than before, and with the system now stationary (all momentum has burned off / all KE converted to GPE) we can reset the MoI back to its initial state, and let the weight drop back down to its initial height, whilst torquing the rotor at its max MoI..

- This results in a 1:1.278 gain in momentum from gravity. So it's a slightly more convoluted process than the 1:1.25 result - the extra steps being: parking the MoI dead-center halfway through the lift, and then re-extending it once the rotor's stopped, post-lift. But it gets us a tiny improvement over the stock result..

I suspect the 25% result is plenty, but good to know that almost 28% is attainable. Still, if anyone has any ideas to maybe widen that margin even further, have at it..

[MrVibrating]

Here's the anatomy of this optimised gain i mentioned earlier - it's exactly the same interaction as before, only this time i've split the 1 second lift period into two sequential 500 ms parts, to highlight what's happening.


So here's the first part:






- Notice that the orientation of the masses remains static throughout; no torque is ever imparted to them, hence, when they're brought into the exact center, the rotor's angular momentum goes to zero. There simply is no rotating mass anymore, orbiting or otherwise.


- Notice also that the remaining momentum, all of which lies on the weight, is 4.905 p - precisely half what we started with (4.905 p on both rotor and weight). Also, the weight's momentum is actually temporarily increased by the inertial acceleration occurring on the rotor / spool, only settling back down to 4.905 p at the 500 ms mark, rather than holding that value throughout the lift as it did when using linear inertial interactions. This fact also neatly demonstrates the 9.81 p/s momentum / time symmetry, ie. we've shed 4.905 p in half a second.


Now, here's the second half of that lift:





- Notice how the remaining 4.905 p of upwards momentum left on the weight is being shared back with the rotor as the masses leave the center and head back out.

- Sliding the masses back outwards is also generating negative torque, further restricting how much more height we can get out of the weight's 4.905 p of upwards momentum..



So, to mitigate the above detrimental effects, we could just leave the masses parked in the center... then the weight is free to convert all of its 4.905 p into height, without further interference:





Sweet! Now we get even more height, which we can thus harness for even more momentum during the subsequent drop.


- Notice that now, at the end of the lift, everything is stationary; all momentum and KE converted to GPE.


- Hence, we can take this opportunity to change the mass radius without performing any work, maxing the MoI before we let the weight drop, and so equalising the resulting distributions of momentum on rotor and weight:





- I've added a little pause 1 second into the drop, to highlight the momentum / time symmetry again - after 1 second, the system has regained its initial value of 9.81 p (4.905 p each on rotor and weight).


- The weight is returned back to its initial -5 m height after 1.278 seconds - notice how, where the prior 'straight-thru' version of this test added 0.25 seconds to the drop time compared to the lift, and accordingly, 25% more momentum... here we have 27.8% extra momentum!

- So, there's 6.26854 p on the rotor, and also another 6.26864 p on the weight, thus 12.53718 p total, and 12.53718 / 9.81 = 1.278 precisely! So again, perfect agreement with the momentum / time symmetry..



Finally, just to provide some contrast, what would happen instead if we just leave the masses parked in the center for the drop?





- Notice now that, without any other loading to arrest its descent, the weight is free to drop back down at its freefall acceleration rate, and so it returns to -5 m in just 0.904 seconds... only enough time to pick up 8.86824 p of momentum; 8.86824 / 9.81 = 0.904! So again, demonstrating momentum / time symmetry.

- The ratio of output momentum of the lone weight, compared to weight-plus-max-MoI-rotor, is 1:1.414, as is the ratio of their respective periods.


Thus, in conclusion, it would appear that the 25% gain is the optimal margin to aim for, both in terms of practicality as well as magnitude, although, with a slightly more complex mechanism, we could get a theoretical maximum yield of 27.8% per cycle, by eliminating the negative inertial torque acting on the final half of the momentum-to-GPE exchange.

To be honest, i doubt that 2.8% difference is worth the extra hassle, much less necessary for an energy gain, however i wanted to determine the absolute best-case momentum yield, and this appears to be it..

[MrVibrating]

In this next test, i've modified the rig to allow the masses to move outwards, from their initial 4 meter radius, out to 8 meters, just to provide a reference for how negative inertial torques affect the momentum distributions.


First off, here's how it behaves with the radius fixed at 4 m:





I've added another pause half a second in - notice how the momenta of rotor and weight remain identical throughout the lift..



Now here it is with the MoI extending, rather than retracting:





Again, it pauses at the half-second mark - notice here how the rotor and weight momenta are no longer equal - the rotor has 1.5x more momentum than the weight after 500 ms. Is this a potentially useful momentum asymmetry? An inelastic collision between rotor and weight at this stage would equalise that difference, leaving each with half the total..



However in the final 500 ms nothing useful happens, and the final net momentum post-drop is 5.34055 p on the rotor, plus 2.67032 p on the weight, so 8.01087 p total, which, divided by the 9.81 p we began with, gives an output momentum just 81% of input, ie. a 19% momentum loss to gravity.


In summary, dropping whilst extending rather than retracting the MoI causes a net loss of momentum, to gravity... however we have seen one potentially interesting result during the lift, a 1:1.5 momentum asymmetry.

Could this latter result bear any relevance to MT 24 / 25, wherein a weight drop is mechanically coupled to an MoI extension, before colliding with its rimstop? Ie. it would seem to be consistent with the hypothesis that MT 24 / 25 could be generating and then consolidating a momentum asymmetry over consecutive cycles...

[MrVibrating]

Been practising useful equations, and can now accurately meter angular momentum with a varying MoI, and thus also RKE, amongst other things...


So i can now formulate and display some more interesting data; as such, here's an automated full cycle with some pertinent graphs:









Net System Momentum / Height:
-----------------------------

The key detail is the greater area under the right side of the curve - gravity is outputting more momentum that is being input into it.






Net System Momentum / Time:
---------------------------

Same again - greater area under the 'positive' upper side of the line integral, the normal amount of momentum for the drop height; the exploit is the reduced momentum cost under the lower 'negative' side.




p/t / p/h Deviation:
--------------------


An interesting plot, this shows how much input momentum we've skimped on. If we were inputting the 9.81 p/s base rate (the same rate we cash in on during the output stroke), then both left and right sides (either side of the 1 second mark) would show a flat trace, following the '0' line.

Instead, we get nominal output (ie. no deviation from passive delta p/h) during the drop, but during the lift we get this asymmetric 'peaked' curve; the reason it intersects the zero line at 500 ms is because we would have this same amount of net momentum remaining - 4.905 p, half our initial input momentum - regardless of whether we move the rotor masses in and out or not, since the 'natural' rate of momentum change is 9.81 p/s, so after 500 ms we'd only have 4.905 p left anyway. However because the 500 ms mark also coincides with the rotor MoI going to zero (as the masses cross the central axis), all of this remaining momentum can only be manifested on the weight alone.

Hence the net effect of the inertial interaction, at this stage, is that without it, that 4.905 p would be equally distributed between rotor and weight, so with 2.4525 p on each. However with the inertial interaction, all of that 4.905 p momentarily resides on the weight alone.

As the masses then leave the center and head back out, the angular inertia and thus angular momentum and RKE pick up again, as the final 4.905 p is scrubbed off.




Actuator Work Done:
-------------------


The positive area above the zero line is 'negative work' - ie. output CF PE - and so can be subtracted from the negative 'input' area under the zero line, to leave the net cost of the inertial interaction.

This energy, divided by the 25% momentum gain, gives the net efficiency of the exploit, ie. how much energy it costs to scam this excess momentum from gravity each cycle.

I'm still ironing this part out, so apologise for any ambiguity or incompleteness - the rotor masses begin and end their travel with 32 J total KE so this is considered conserved, and the workload upon the actuator is simply holding their translation speed at a constant 8 m/s against the variation in CF & CP forces as the radius rises and falls.

So it looks fairly cheap, though i'd hesitate to put a definite figure on it at this stage (if anyone else can help figure this out, please chip in?) I'd stress again though that whatever this cost, conservation of momentum - Newton's 1st law - is not supposed to be energy-dependent.. so even if it was 50 J per kg-m/s (it's way lower than this, but whatever its cost), accumulating this momentum gain over successive cycles will inevitably arrive at some 'unity' threshold velocity below which the system is under-unity, and above which it is over-unity. The horse before that cart is simply the ability to buy unilateral momentum, at any energy cost, in an otherwise closed system of interacting masses.

If we can hold that cost constant over multiple cycles, despite rising system velocity, then we will start to gain 'free' energy from the standard KE terms, 1/2mV^2 & 1/2MoI*RPM^2. Remember, there is absolutely no magic involved in this part - it's just the standard KE value of momentum. The exploit is simply the reduced cost of generating that momentum in the first place; that is, circumventing the usual v^2 multiplier on the energy cost of accumulating this 'reactionless' momentum.





Just for clarity, here's the same sim again, with pauses added at the 500 ms and 1 second waypoints:








So the main task now is to find a way to accumulate this momentum gain repeatedly over successive cycles! That will basically be job done - 'free' energy, from momentum, from gravity..!

Not to sugest it'll necessarily be quick or easy to get from here to there, but it is just an engineering issue from hereon; the physics problem is solved, i believe..



Sim + actuator data table attached below:

[MrVibrating]

Here's an extrapolation of the momentum we've cheated from gravity:




...that's folding wedge right there..

[MrVibrating]

Here's the 27.8% gain variation:



To save bandwidth here, the same cycle's ran twice, with a longer pause mid-way on the repeat so you can eyeball the stats.

It's basically the same interaction as before, only now the MoI is left at zero as the final half of the momentum is scrubbed off.

Then, when it's wound to a halt, we have a slight (2.3%) increase over our previous GPE boost, and we can reset the MoI of the stationary rotor, prior to re-dropping the weight.

Thus we get a 27.8% increase in momentum - 12.5 p, over our 9.81 p input across the same height.

However, having actually simmed it properly, we notice that the "actuator work done" integral no longer has a 'negative' component, above the zero line - we've done work against CF pulling the masses into the center, but without benefitting from any re-conversion of CF PE when moving them back out on the stationary rotor.

Obviously, the work involved in resetting the stationary MoI is negligible, but what this does mean is that although we've snagged slightly more momentum per cycle, we've also paid more input energy.


Thus the ratio of input energy to momentum gain is probably not improved, and perhaps slightly worse. We also have the added mechanical complexity of handling the pause and reset.


As such, this isn't so much of an optimisation as i'd thought it might be, and fully inverting the MoI in a single stroke seems the better way to proceed..





Sim & actuator data tables attached:

[MrVibrating]

The previous sims examined how the active MoI variation altered the rate at which the system sheds the momentum it has already been given, as a function of time, and height, in comparison to a purely passive upwards flight over the same time, and height.

Because nature's default rate of change of momentum of a gravitating system has been shown to be a steady 9.81 p / sec per kg of gravitating mass, the system was given exactly 9.81 p of net momentum, evenly distributed between the weight and the rotor.

So the 1 kg weight began with 4.905 p of upwards momentum, and the initially 1 kg-m^2 rotor it was spooling on to was also given 4.905 p of clockwise angular momentum.

Then the sim was run for 1 second - the coasting weight winding itself up onto the coasting rotor / spool, the net system losing momentum at the rate of 9.81 p/s, whilst the MoI of the rotor was reduced from its initial value of 1, down to zero, and back up to 1.

The result shows that we can break nature's default momentum / height symmetry; raising the weight to a greater height than the inital 9.81 p of momentum would've allowed.

Quite simply, by using the 'ice skater effect' to feed extra velocity to the system without adding extra momentum, gravity's default rate of change of 9.81 p/s allows us to reach a greater height over that one second, than that 9.81 p of momentum was 'worth' with respect to the normal change in height that would otherwise be achieved with a purely passive, 'static MoI' system.

This increased height that the weight is subsequently dropped from means that it takes more time to fall back down to its initial height, and so gains more momentum from gravity's default 9.81 p/s rate of change over that extended period, than was input into it over the same height during the raising. The system thus returns to its starting height condition with 12.3 p of momentum, a gain of 25% over its 9.81 p outlay.

This may seem perfectly innocuous and trivial - and it is of course; we simply added more velocity without adding more momentum, to one half of the interaction only - however at a very fundamental level there is nothing at all trivial about it!

What we have achieved is nothing less than an extraction of momentum from gravity!


We're all familiar with the facts of how and why gravity is not an energy source... but it's not usually a net source or sink of momentum either!

Yet what these very simple rigs demonstrate is that by modulating the angular component of the net system inertia, we can likewise modify the velocity and thus GPE components, independently of the net momentum, selectively for either the input or output halves of the interaction!

Only the 'ice skater effect' makes this possible - any other conventional means of adding more velocity would necessarily increase the input momentum accordingly. But the singular ability of a varying MoI to produce torque precisely because of momentum constancy allows us to produce asymmetric momentum exchanges with gravity over a closed-loop trajectory!

In a nutshell, conservation of angular momentum can be applied to successively pump mechanical momentum into gravity... or equally, milk raw mechanical momentum from it!

This has decisive implications in the quest for mechanical over-unity, by offering a means to circumvent the V^2 multiplier on the cost of raising momentum.

However, this is only possible because the system is no longer thermodynamically closed - its net momentum is not zero, with gravity footing the bill..

So let's consider what this interaction does to Earth, in response to the change in 'net system' momentum of our not-so 'closed system' of rotor + weight:

- As noted, the initial 9.81 p of momentum given to the system is divided equally betwen 4.905 p of upwards momentum on the weight, plus another 4.905 p of clockwise angular momentum on the rotor.

- This means that we've also applied -4.905 p of 'downwards' momentum to the planet, plus -4.905 p of anti-clockwise angular momentum.

- So the actual net input momentum, including the counter-momenta necessarily applied to Earth, is 9.81 p to the rig, plus another -9.81 p to earth, and so zero thus far.

- At the same rate the upwards-coasting weight is being decelerated by gravity, so the counter-momentum applied to the planet is also being braked off. Thus the rig, and planet, are both shedding momentum at the rate of 9.81 p/s, and so both come to a halt at the same moment, after 1 second, with respect to one another.

- However with respect to coordinate space, the 'inertial torque' applied to the rotor has caused the weight to rise to a greater height than the corresponding downwards displacement of the Earth!

- Since the Earth was still gravitationally attracting towards the weight whilst the inertial torque was being applied, the weight was also dragging the whole planet upwards! The net location of the system with respect to coordinate space has thus changed! The rig has come to a halt with respect to Earth, but a net momentum has been added to the complete system of Earth + rig, from gravity!

- When we then let the weight drop whilst spooling off of a fixed MoI, it arrives back at its initial height with 6.148 p of downwards momentum, with another 6.148 of anticlockwise angular momentum on the rotor.

- This necessarily implies that equal opposing momenta have been induced to earth: -6.148 p of clockwise angular momentum, plus another -6.148 p of upwards momentum.

- When the rig then halts again after returning the weight to its starting height, the rig's 12.296 p of momentum and the Earth's -12.296 p of counter-momentum cancel out, causing no net change in the complete (earth + rig) system momentum during the second half of the interaction.



In summary, then, the net effect of using an inertial torque to boost the height that the initial conserved momentum gravitated through, was a net vertical acceleration applied to the complete system, equal to the 25% gain in the rig's momentum, divided by Earth's mass.

Since the inertial torque was applied by fully inverting the MoI - pulling the orbiting masses into the center and back out to their initial radius - one assumes that the net torques applied to Earth mostly cancelled out; the positive torque applied to Earth as the masses were pulled inwards was presumably mostly equal to the negative torque so applied as they travelled back out from the center of rotation to their starting radius. Hence the inertially-boosted vertical component constitutes most of the unbalanced momentum.

The weight and planet move an equal distance up and down in relation to one another, but the net system of weight plus planet is being dragged upwards by the action of gravity upon the inertially-accelerated weight.

Thus it appears we have an effective 'warp drive' mechanism, wherein the 'warp bubble' is Earth's gravity field; if we can harness this effect then we could accelerate a craft up to ludicrous speed whilst spending only a tiny fraction of the kinetic energy we'd be adding to the system.

If we don't control this effect and only exploit it to harness 'free energy', we'll simply be inadvertently accelerating the planet regardless, and so ultimately destroying all life as we know it.

It cannot be stressed highly enough that the great storm of 1717, and the mega-quake in New Zealand's Alpine fault around the same time, both aligned along the exact same vertical axis centered upon the initiation, duration and cessation of Bessler's longest and most powerful demonstration at Castle Weissenstein, are no longer a matter of mere correlation; we're also looking at a direct mechanical means of causation: results that would be expected from a net acceleration applied to Earth.

There surely has to be a corresponding discrepancy in the lunar cycle, although i can find no record of it. Maybe it was simply too slight to be noticable, and perhaps also mitigated somewhat by the fact that the Earth's 'gravity well' itself was accelerating, thus accelerating the Moon in the same plane with minimal lag. Regardless, this doesn't inspire any more confidence in the sustainablity of this exploit as a 'free energy' principle if these counter-momenta cannot be safely controlled.


Still, if only to restore some symmetry to the investigation, here's a demonstration of the same principle as applied to a static start - basically the corollary interaction to the prior one, and comparing passive versus active drops, this time from a standing start:





We see that the active rig on the left undergoes a greater drop in height than the passive baseline rig on the right.

Both rigs gain 9.81 p in 1 second from gravity, and likewise, both rigs gain 12.3 J on each of their rotors and weights, so 24.6 J on each rig.

However, the passive rig on the right demonstrates nature's default symmetry between the change in momentum and the change in height / GPE - its rise in both net system momentum and KE are in direct equal proportion to the output of GPE.

Whereas the active rig on the left has broken this symmetry - gaining neither the full complement of momentum or KE in relation to its GPE output. Quite simply, it has been dropped too far for the amount of momentum and KE it has gained from its fall, effectively gaining less of each compared to the passive drop over an equal given change in height.

So inverting the MoI during the drop, instead of during the lift, likewise flips the sign of the net acceleration applied to Earth, now oriented downwards - the Earth no longer has enough time to regain its full assignment of 4.905 p linear counter-momentum before the weight has completed its descent, falling 25% short of that symmetry point, and so applying precisely 1.22625 kg-m/s of 'downwards' linear momentum, from gravity, to the complete system of Earth plus rig, for every full cycle of this interaction.



I suspect it may be possible in WM2D to actually simulate this acceleration of the net system (ie. including 'earth') - either by modelling a free-floating 'gravity well' point source, or else perhaps by substituting gravity with centrifugal force.

While the focus of attention that led here was 'free energy' from accumulating reactionless momentum, this cannot remain the primary concern if it's as meddling as it now seems - as a prospect, it seems more certain than ever (pretty much a foregone conclusion; accumulate this momentum gain over successive cycles and we should quickly have more KE than we've paid in input energy), but doing it sustainably is absolutely paramount. Suffice to say the propulsion implications are every bit as tantalising, if it can be controlled and vectored usefully.

If anyone has any questions i'll do my best to try clarify anything, likewise if anyone has any insights or can see anything i've missed, do pipe up. All of this is as new and unfamiliar to me as it must be to anyone else..

For now, this net momentum applied to Earth is only inferred, from standard assumptions of Newton's 3rd law. The next objective should be to directly model and measure it..

[Fletcher]

In some of the sims I've built to test Impulse (f x t) I built a base to mount my rigs on. That was because there appeared to be a shortage of momentum (when I added it all up) which I reasoned must be going to ground (planet earth). And this didn't show in the sim, it simply disappeared. I had to try to fool the sim into showing me the effect on the earthing. So I made a spring mounted block (massive). Let things find their own level and then run the sim. I measured the springs movement and power etc to try an find if momentum was going to earth which appeared to me it shouldn't in the theory I'm working to unless the sim was directing the outcomes to conform to CoE above momentum. You might like to employ your own 'base' to further test assumptions ?

AFAIK in physics momentum is a fundamental, more fundamental than Energy. That is, momentum is always conserved, and because of that Energy is also conserved. But KE is not always conserved. So a fully elastic collision (elasticity set to 1.0) will conserve momentum and KE. A fully inelastic collision (elasticity set to 0.0) will conserve momentum but not KE.

Keep up the good work Mr V and hopefully a practical device to test your hypothesis will come to you over a morning coffee if you keep ruminating on it. One hasn't popped into my head yet when I read your posts and updates unfortunately. More coffee maybe !

[MrVibrating]

Wow, just noticed yet another broken symmetry..!

Going back to the prior, inverse interaction, with an active lift followed by a static drop, i had presumed that the increased GPE had been directly converted from and contributed by the energy applied to the actuators in varying the MoI..

For example, the passive lift with no MoI variation converts its initial 9.81 p of momentum and corresponding 24.058 J of KE into a 24.058 J rise in GPE, entirely as would be expected.

However the active lift, where the MoI goes cross-eyed, converts that same amount of initial momentum and KE - 9.81 p and 24.058 Joules - into a 37.795 J rise in GPE.


Therefore i had simply assumed that the difference between passive and active changes in GPE (37.795 - 24.058 = 13.737 J) must've been provided via the energy supplied to the linear actuators inverting the MoI.. in short, that the MoI variation had added KE, which in turn converted into the increased GPE.

Pretty fair deduction, no?

But hang on - look again at the most recent result; both active and passive systems gain the same momentum and KE over the 1 second drop period, despite the increased drop height on the active rig!

So it now appears there there is not only a momentum / time and momentum / height symmetry being broken, but also a KE / time and KE / height asymmetry!

Perhaps this is due to the MoI fully inverting, and so removing any KE it added when it contracts, as it expands again. Regardless, the active drop only generates sufficient KE equal to 1 second of gravitation, but which is no longer equal to its GMH!

The MoI variation adds no KE to the drop, and thus couldn't've added any to the lift either! The increased height and thus GPE did not simply convert from the energy supplied to the MoI variation!

Thus the output GPE gain is thermodynamically decoupled from the input energy fed to the MoI variation!

So to try clarify that, under normal circumstances there is a default symmetry both between the amount of momentum a falling mass collects over a certain height, as well as the amount of time it is in flight over that height.

Really, however, the momentum / height symmetry is false - only circumstantially and incidentally coincident with the actual change in height! All that really affects the change in momentum of a falling mass is the amount of time that it is subject to free-fall!

However this also applies to the KE output of a given GPE!!

Usually, the change in GPE as a function of height is directly and equally proportionate to the change in KE over the drop period!

But by modifying the drop speed without modifying the momentum or KE, we break that symmetry between both momentum and GPE, and also KE and GPE!

So it is not so much the height a mass drops from that determines how much KE it will gain over its fall, but rather, more fundamentally, the amount of time that fall takes, and thus the amount of time during which the mass is subject to gravity's acceleration!

People, GPE is not a function of height! It's only a function of drop time, and the default correlation with height is merely coincidental, and flexible!

Example: in 1 second a 1 kg weight will drop by 4.905 meters, gaining 9.81 p of momentum, and 48.11 Joules of KE:

- We would normally assume that this momentum and KE are, to all practical intents and purposes, purely a function of that 4.905 meter drop height; that is, we would say that 1 kg dropping 4.905 meters has 48.11 Joules of PE, and will reach a speed of 9.81 meters / sec, so inducing 9.81 kg-m/s of momentum, in attaining that velocity.

- The point being that we usually ascribe a given output KE and momentum to a given GMH - using 'height' as the metric of how much momentum and KE to expect from a given value of mass and gravity.

- But this equivalence is not fundamental, and only cursory! We should more accurately be placing our emphasis upon the amount of time spent gravitating that a given drop height correlates to - GPE is truly a function of time, over absolute height, and the latter correlation is an epiphenomenon, not a law of nature!

- If there were any more dramatic punctuation marks than exclamations, i'd be spamming them instead!!!

- In the prior system with an active lift and passive drop, the system gains 1.75x more GPE than the KE supplied to it - it begins with 24.05902 J, and without adding any net energy from the MoI variation, converts that into a 37.795 J rise in GPE; 37.795 J - 24.05902 J = 13.73577 J, and 24.05902 / 13.73577 = 1.75155... it is not simply conserving its momentum over the increased lift height, but also likewise stretching out its expenditure of the initially-provided KE corresponding to that momentum! The net effect of the MoI variation is to boost the lift velocity without adding momentum or KE, thus increasing the amount of height the weight rises by over the given 1 second period in which it is subject to gravitation - thus breaking the 'fictional' KE / GMH symmetry!


Curioser and curioser..

[MrVibrating]

In some of the sims I've built to test Impulse (f x t) I built a base to mount my rigs on. That was because there appeared to be a shortage of momentum (when I added it all up) which I reasoned must be going to ground (planet earth). And this didn't show in the sim, it simply disappeared. I had to try to fool the sim into showing me the effect on the earthing. So I made a spring mounted block (massive). Let things find their own level and then run the sim. I measured the springs movement and power etc to try an find if momentum was going to earth which appeared to me it shouldn't in the theory I'm working to unless the sim was directing the outcomes to conform to CoE above momentum. You might like to employ your own 'base' to further test assumptions ?

AFAIK in physics momentum is a fundamental, more fundamental than Energy. That is, momentum is always conserved, and because of that Energy is also conserved. But KE is not always conserved. So a fully elastic collision (elasticity set to 1.0) will conserve momentum and KE. A fully inelastic collision (elasticity set to 0.0) will conserve momentum but not KE.

Keep up the good work Mr V and hopefully a practical device to test your hypothesis will come to you over a morning coffee if you keep ruminating on it. One hasn't popped into my head yet when I read your posts and updates unfortunately. More coffee maybe !

Thanks mate, from colliding moving with static masses, in both angular and linear examples, i found that with elasticity set to 1, KE is conserved, but momentum rises, whereas with it set to zero, momentum is conserved but not KE.

As for applications here, it's all too elementary at the moment, just combining a basic gravitational interaction with a basic inertial interaction.

What i notice is that when i was applying a force between two masses for the inertial interaction, i was adding momentum to the system, but gravity was not; when the masses fell, they only ended up with the amount of momentum i'd input by forcing the two masses apart.

Whereas here, i'm now using inertial torques for the inertial interaction, which do not add momentum; now the systems only gain momentum in proportion to the GPE, but not from the inertial interaction. Interesting switcheroo there..

But most fascinating is this break between GMH and KE / momentum - i'm getting 1.75x more GPE than the KE i'm inputting, and the most recent tests imply that this gain cannot be coming from the energy input to the MoI variation, since it also adds no energy to the active drop! The active lift or drop height increases, but not the KE or momentum!

So it's still too early to try to apply these findings to a wheel design; i'm still finding more elephants in the custard..

Again though, these principles scale up and down linearly, so a useful implementation might not look anything like the current raw experiments.

In light of the latest realisations, an implementation might try to exploit this KE / GMH / time asymmetry, as opposed to the former plan to cheat on the input energy cost of accumulating momentum - it may be possible to go straight to OU with a single lift, if i'm reading the current results the right way up..!

Because the implied 'warp drive' effect depends upon mobility of the gravity source, substituting gravity with centrifugal 'G-force' might be the best way to test for it. I haven't played with WM's 'planetary' gravity feature, though i suspect that this too won't accommodate metering the position and thus momentum state of the 'home' reference frame with respect to an external coordinate space. What i need is a free-floating point source for the 'gravity' field itself.. not to develop an energy gain principle, just to make sure it can be done without inadvertently repeating the great storm of 1717, only multiplied up by a few million YouTube views and subsequent hapless builds..

These systems are definitely gaining momentum and GMH that does not appear to have been imparted by or converted from the energy input to the MoI variation. If the input energy to output GMH equivalence is incidental in the same manner as the GMH / 'time gravitating' momentum asymmetry, then i may be just one further trick away from an energy-from-gravity scenario, sidestepping the need to accumulate momentum before its KE value can diverge from its cost of production..

I'm going at a fairly glacial pace here, still interpreting results two weeks after obtaining them... but the discoveries just keep coming, and with them, the impression of an inexorable path to success in B's footprints.. I'm convinced i'd be going a tad faster if i wasn't tied to a f*@#ing motorcycle for 11 hours a day and sleeping 4 hours a night, but hey B. designed, financed and built over 100 unworkable machines whilst practising medicine and without so much as a lightbulb, let alone calculator and sims.. his success assures ours. Give it another year, tops... ;)

[Fletcher]

FWIW my manufactured f x t sim experiments got a gain of circa 180% thereabouts (nearly 2 times GPH output to input). That seems to reconcile reasonably closely with your optimal figure Mr V.

Translating the constant force format to a variable force input more akin to a collision with a mechanical device to accomplish the same is scrambling my mind atm. Will get back to it when I get back in country.