Toad Elevating Moment

[Fletcher]

FYI - there's something going on with your WM attachments - when you download them they are called 'download' with a .php file extension - I have managed to open them by selecting WM2D program then saving them as, in this case, 'Beam FxD', & it has the correct .wm2d extension.

Others may have worked this out but it would be easier just to attach it as a WM file ?!

[MrVibrating]

Strange, hadn't noticed that... i don't see anything to select filetypes on the upload widget, so dunno what i can do about it...

The attached screenshot is what i get upon loading your kit - as you can see the basics are there, but it's missing bits and all the colorful formatting is lost..

It doesn't crash, but as you can see i don't have the generic pin feature in this version (5.1.2.53).

The methodology looks interesting - with a vertical drop the forces will be consistent so that's a plus.. and the pulleys are ingenious, i didn't think WM could handle pulleys this well... but i don't quite see how to map this onto the brake lift test - if your version can model pin friction then that's all we need - just find the perfect balancing pure moment for a rig using the motor or torque tools, find the peak RPM when fully lifted from stationary, then invert the config - give it that RPM first then brake it with pin friction at the found torque value - this should lift the rig up to horizontal, with the flywheel's RKE hitting zero just as the beam crests...

This will prove that no extra energy is entering the system, and that the lift is attained using only the RKE on the wheel.. then we can pretty much break out the cigars and champers and have done with it..

[Fletcher]

Hi Mr.V .. I'm running out of time - 2 days before I head off again.

I'm putting up sims I hope you can cannibalize for things you want - it doesn't help that you can't see everything nor run half the sims.

Anywho .. below as attachments are remakes of your sim experiment i.e. braking options.

The generic pin with pin friction coefficient & pin radius works fine, it appears - you will need others sim inputs from now on.

You will see the first sim has a motor lift for control on the right.

In the second I have reduced the FW mass to 1 gram & added 4 masses at 0.7 radius to approximate the inertia characteristics of the even disk [probably about 0.67] to see if everything behaves the same or similar - it did for the pin friction braking option but not the other two.

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

Just a recap for those following you along.

1. providing a friction brake creates a negative torque.

2. like a motor has torque & back torque trying to turn the car frame so the FW has a negative torque via friction - this is the pure moment or twisting force.

3. it lifts the FW gaining GPE.

4. Mr.V contends that increasing the FW radius & mass distribution i.e. changing inertia, makes it harder to turn the FW so less RPM's are achieved for the same effort.

5. he contends that at very large radii the energy required to rotate the FW is substantially less than the PE gained after the lift process i.e. the PE can be recovered as KE to do work.

6. he contends that there is an energy inequity or symmetry break in input/output energy's, which can be put to use.

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

The next step IMO is to really look closely at the amount of energy it requires to achieve the rotation of the FW [including sensitivity to radius & inertia etc] v's GPE gained to see if it is likely very real or the titanic.

Best of luck Mr.V - I like what you have done so far & I'll keep with it as long as I can, until I get back.

[ruggerodk]

That's the cool thing - no actual 'spin' is required... in the above sims, the 8 m flywheel can lift itself and the swing arm for just 15° of rotation. ....... and no high speeds are required.

MrV:
I'm not sure I understand the design of your app...A still image would help, please.

Are you talking about a lollipop with a 8 m diameter flywheel at one end (the bob) of a beam?
Lenght of said beam?

EDIT: My suggestion was just a freewheeling 'motor' at the axle of the flywheel - at high speed it is supposed to be geared up and transfer torque to the large flywheel (if that make sense?)

ruggero ;-)

[MrVibrating]

@ruggerodk



Basically just a pendulum with a rotating bob. If the bob is subjected to a clockwise torque, applied between the beam and wheel, an anti-clockwise counter torque is produced on the beam. This back-reaction is our 'pure moment', and if its magnitude is high enough it will balance the rig - so it will sit there horizontally, with the accelerating or decelerating flywheel suspended out horizontally as shown.

Obviously, the downforce acting on the wheel is a function of its weight and also the beam's radius. The pure moment counter-acting this downforce is a function of the wheel's rotational inertia, which is a function of its mass distribution.

So there's no need for an eight-meter flywheel - the only reason i've tested such wheels is because i chose to plot how the input energy changed as a function of changing wheel diameter.

However, i could equally have kept the wheel's radius at 500 mm, and shortened the beam instead - preserving the same dynamic. However this would reduce the output translational energy - the GPE available when the un-torqued wheel is allowed to drop.

Because i wanted to see how the input energy varied against a fixed output energy, i kept the beam's length at two meters and kept doubling the wheel's radius instead, plotting a four-fold drop in required input energy for each doubling of the wheel's radius... while the output GPE remained the same; a fixed function of the wheel's unchanging mass and the two meter drop.

So unfeasibly large flywheels are not a requirement, and are simply a way of widening the apparent asymmetry for testing purposes.

What the data seems to show is that the asymmetry reaches peak efficiency when the flywheel is around 8 times the radius of the flywheel. So for example a 1 meter radius flywheel would work well with a 175 mm beam, and so on.

Below this radius ratio, the efficiency gets worse, and indeed inverts - a small radius flywheel on a long beam requires orders of magnitude more input RKE than the output translational GPE available; it'd be massively under-unity.

Above this ratio, the interaction remains OU, but with diminishing returns for the increasing flywheel radius - the efficiency appears to converge towards a maximum that doesn't significantly improve, no matter how much larger the flywheel than the beam.

So for optimum power density an 8:1 wheel/beam ratio looks promising, whatever their actual dimensions, however this remains a coarse estimate simply based on successive doublings of the wheel radius... the optimum ratio may be more accurately quantified by making finer measurement increments...

@Fletch, sorry bruv gotta scoot off to work now, will come back to ya this evening..

[Dunesbury]

It seem bob not rotating in correct plane to produce lift torque on beam?
Rotating force of bob in lollipop in same plane as beam.
So lift not in plane of beam. Lift into page and out.
Please advise.

[Fletcher]

I think Dunesbury you are alluding to precession forces as per gyroscopes ?

In this case the bob rotates either CW or CCW - it must either be accelerating or decelerating & the Flywheel pin must have friction for the anti-torque to work against [a ground if you will] - that means all relevant forces are in the same plane for this purpose.

Mr.V explained it very clearly last post to Ruggerrodk.

Remember the example earlier of a motorbike in the air - the back wheel is either accelerated or braked to create a pitching moment & raise or lower the front wheel to line up a 2 point landing - the bikes CoM isn't raised but there is a twisting force from torque/anti-torque.

It really comes down to whether the cost in energy terms of spinning up a Flywheel is really LESS than the GPE achieved, in certain circumstances - if it can be shown to be so conclusively then Mr.V has something quite extraordinary I think.

You don't need a full blown self-sustaining wheel, just a sound principle of a symmetry break - in this case it would appear that Noether's Theorem of rotation & conservation of angular momentum might be under assault from Mr.V.

ETA: ancillary background: before anyone says it, CoE [symmetry of time to energy] isn't Conservation of KE - you just have to look at Wubbly's spreadsheet [simple integral calculus] of the 'hanger & batteries experiment' to see that when masses move to a greater radius KE is dumped & when a force x distance [work/energy] is applied to move them to a closer radius KE is invested - in both scenarios CoAM applies & is a constant.

http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/download.php?id=12003

[MrVibrating]

Fletch sorry late one last night, but thanks so much for your help. I've got another more recent version of WM that tries a sneaky code injection every time you save a file... so i'd been avoiding using it for that reason. I would of course just buy WM if only i could afford it - since they don't even advertise a price or download option it's fair to assume i could never afford it.

So i'm gonna try running this more recent crack in a sandbox, hopefully it includes the generic pin contraint and i'll be able to properly use your sims...

The pulley sim though looks particularly useful for running drop tests, something i intend to try.

And it's fantastic news that pin friction appears to work. So grateful for you verifying this... having been through so many false starts already, when i thought i really might have had something, it's hard to shake the nagging doubt that this is just yet another, if longer lasting delusion... Maybe i'd finally tripped over the other side, never to return.. lol...

However if this is real then i'm completely unprepared for what comes next. Building a model would seem more fruitful than further sims, so might have a go at that instead.

But i think the best thing to do would be to seek professional assistance - get the asymmetry verified, or not, by a lab specialised in these things.

I learned most of what i know about hunting symmetry breaks from Steorn. It was in the SKDB that Grimer first brought the Bessler case to my attention, back in 2010. Although i only took a brief look at the time, i found it compelling enough that i resolved to have a go at it after my investigation of Orbo...

I decided, there in the SKDB, that if i was sucessful in finding a gravitational exploit, i'd bring it back to Steorn, as they'd be best qualified to take it seriously, run the tests, attract funding and develop it.

Also, it has to be remembered that after a year at this, trying everything, exhausting as far as i could the posssibilities of what i've called "simple 2D translations", the transition to spinning masses was an inevitability, and so, like everyone else who's got that far, i started playing with inertial forces, and like everyone else, getting nowhere. The breakthrough was remembering one of Steorn's e-learning modules on pure moments:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eq_b8z3kH3c

I was fascinated by this at the time - i had the strong impression that here was a potential symmetry break exploit, but i didn't spend enough time on it figuring it out... if only i'd trusted my gut and followed my nose!

But also one can't help wondering what its applicabilty to Orbo is? Why did Steorn feature it, if it had nothing to do with time dependent properties of magnetism? Things like coercivity, remanance, permeability - all the paraphenalia of an Orbo interaction - have no analogues in mass / gravity interactions, which are instantaneous, not time-dependent. Exposure time to a gravitational field has no influence on a mass's weight or energy...

Did they simply include it because they had the same gut instinct i had?

Perhaps the unintuitive nature of force couples / pure moments make them one of the few things that fit into the curio cabinet of basic mechanics... something a lecturer can whip out to beguile and entice an audience bored with humdrum formulas... get a few "ooh"s and "ahh"s before drilling 'em with more calculus...

So it might've been purely circumstantial to Orbo, and included for no better reason than a study on yeti might reference the Loch Ness monster. If that improbable thing is plausible, then why not this one too? Type stuff...

Whatever their reasons for including it, i have to admit that had it not been on the back of my mind ever since, i might not have ever discovered it myself, even with all the focus of the last year. Divine inspiration, this was not.


So, i can see two ways to go - move this thread into a private area and try to get others involved developing it, for our collective benefit - but then how far could we take it? Dunno about anyone else but i'm skint, have to work long hours for less than minimum wage, don't have time or space or financial resources to do much..

Or i could just outsource all that to Steorn - get them to test it with industry-standard sims, robust test rigs and top quality data aquisition systems.

I think a dedicated professional outfit like Steorn could do more with this in a week than us lot working together over months.

Another option of course might be to contact universities who might be interested. What i've learned though from Steorn's experience is that universities tend to approach these things with the same type of skepticism as anyone else, if not moreso (quite understandably) - and this compromised objectivity is going to hinder progress at best.

I began this search with an over-riding advantage: knowing already that classical asymmetries were possible, understanding their terms, how CoE applies and thus precisely, how it does not. I already knew the form of the asymmetry (time-dependence vs spatial (ie. temporal invariance)). I already understood that it was the mechanism that was the backbone of the asymmetry, rather than field properties per se, and that it was thus transferable to any applied force, such as EM.

So while i still had the same reasonable doubts as anyone, i also knew exactly what i was looking for, where to look for it, and how to look. Couple that with the Bessler case's compelling circumstantial evidence, and as arrogant as it sounds, i knew i could work through this objectively.

Steorn have this same advantage, where a university will not. For a worst case scenario, imagine what kind of response this would get on the Moletrap forum... folks who should by their own estimation be best qualified to review such claims are usually encumbered by a pathological inability to apply sufficient objectivity to actually validate a genuine anomaly. They get stuck in a loop of cognitive disonance and confirmation bias, derisory of anything challenging their beliefs. We've all seen it before.

So what to do..?

Go into skunkworks mode, form a company, try to get rich licencing..

Call a uni, try to get a bunch of students validating and then take it from there...

Or call Ghostbusters?

[MrVibrating]

As to the final question - of whether the inverse RKE / inertia relationship is correct, i think it's pretty much proven by the brake tests and radius plots... everything looks consistent to me, but then if this IS a delusion then i would think that... I still have the same irrepressibly deap-seated doubts as anyone that this could be real... won't be able to shake it until more folks can verify it...

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/rke.html

[Dunesbury]

2 point landing, motorbike only change direction in space.
But it take energy to change direction.
In this purpose, chemical energy from fuel.
How Mr V. accelerate lollipop from start and after one cycle lift/drop?

[Fletcher]

As to the final question - of whether the inverse RKE / inertia relationship is correct, i think it's pretty much proven by the brake tests and radius plots... everything looks consistent to me, but then if this IS a delusion then i would think that... I still have the same irrepressibly deap-seated doubts as anyone that this could be real... won't be able to shake it until more folks can verify it...

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/rke.html

I think you could do with the likes of Wubbly & Dwayne's input Mr.V.

They can run the math for you - it really is a matter of can a large radius flywheel with large inertia be spun up for less energy cost than the GPE achieved by braking the system - I know you are confident.

I suggest you read some of the threads Wubbly has posted in, such as the attwoods thread for example - AFAIK I = mr^2 so if you double the radius the mass is distributed at then it is four times as hard to cause rotation by application of a force [or torque].

IOW's a drive weight of known mass will loose GPE spinning up flywheels - a lower inertia FW will have a higher RPM & the drive weight will have a greater TKE at bottom of drop - the higher inertia FW will have lesser RPM & more RKE as the drive weight will have less velocity & TKE at bottom of drop - I'm not sure there is the free-lunch you hope is going to be there ? - but this needs a spreadsheet to confirm & possibly some tests if you have a work-around.

[MrVibrating]

Cheers mate, i chew over every word you say hoping you'll pinch me out of it, but i've already considered these issues:

The amount of energy we can apply to a flywheel via a drop weight is indeed a function of their mass and moment - with a lower moment less energy is transferred to the wheel, but the remainder of the net GPE is left with the weight.. in short, not all of the energy was tranferred. In this respect, it is an issue of transmission systems - a smaller moment flywheel could be made to induce an equal or greater proportion of the net GPE as a higher-moment wheel simply by applying a high gear ratio between the wheel and drop weight, so at the bottom of its travel it has minimal KE and the rest is on the wheel.

However in our case, we're simply assuming a priori that by whatever means of application, the wheel has x amount of energy, and no more or less. Perfect transmission is just a theoretical given along with zero heat loss - all that really matters is that the wheel has some energy, that we know how much, and that it's conserved.

Because of this last point, it's not actually necessary for large-radius flyweights (i say flyweights as i envisage lightweight beams with weighted ends as being more practical, and they're not very wheel-like) - although i've described the smaller-radii inverse ratio end of the asymmetry as "massively under-unity" this isn't strictly accurate...

If you think about it, the symmetry break is not merely that input RKE can, in principal, be lower than output translational. That's just the icing on the cake...

The asymmetry is that the beam plus weight is balanced - if only partially - on the ascent, but not on descent.

Consider this cycle: From hanging stationary at BDC we apply the perfect balancing pure moment as a changing function of the lift angle (the max PM force is needed at horizontal, less above and below), swinging 180° up to 12 o'clock TDC.

Whatever the moment of inertia and subsequent RKE, we've now input the minimum energy for that stroke.

The GPE cost was negligible, because the load was perfectly balanced all the way up.

Virtually all of our input energy then is still there on the flyweight.

If we now remove the PM and let the rotating FW fall 180° back down to BDC, we can harvest the full translational GPE...

...and even though this may be more OR LESS - much much less even - than the input RKE.... we still have that RKE!!!

At this point then, the net energy of the system = the input RKE plus the output GPE. We have all the energy we started out with, plus some extra GPE, that literally just kinda fell outa the sky.

Regardless of the radius, RPM / RKE or moment of inertia... We gain.


So when i described small radius / long beam configs as inefficient, this was based on the assumption that the RKE was almost an exhaust product - that it'd be dissipated away as heat via a brake applied after 'lifting'. With a hi-moment FW, we can get away with being so wasteful. But with a lo-moment rig we'd just be making a load of heat... however we'd have a heater that also did a little bit of free work - even if it's magnitudes less than the heat output.

However, if we go back to our prospective 180° cycle, what if, upon raising the FW to TDC, the beam hits a stopper, then we invert the torque by applying a brake...

Now, not only do we get output GPE we haven't paid for, but in addition all of the RKE we did invest gets converted straight back to output translational on the beam - ideally, the FW would come to a halt as the beam returns to BDC, the negative torque curve on the way down being the mirror image of the positive torque curve on the way up.

So regardless of the RKE / GPE ratio, what it really boils down to is that the beam is balanced on ascent, but not on descent. That's the asymmetry, and all the rest is just a zero-sum game, a means to that end..

[MrVibrating]

2 point landing, motorbike only change direction in space.
But it take energy to change direction.
In this purpose, chemical energy from fuel.
How Mr V. accelerate lollipop from start and after one cycle lift/drop?

The amount of rotation required for a large radius flywheel could be just a few degrees. A very small flywheel however would need to reach quite high speeds. Either option produces the same net result of OU, but with smaller flywheels you'd need to recover the RKE, such as by a brake.

You could still recover RKE for large radius wheels too, although that wouldn't be a necessary requirement.

As for applying torque in the first place, any means is fine - depends on the amount you need and for how many degrees of rotation of the flywheel. Rotational springs would seem a neat solution, although the Meresburg illustrations seem to be recommending a drop weight running via a couple of pulleys..

However this is merely an engineering issue, not a question of the core asymmetry; its practicability isn't contingent upon the development of suitable means for applying torque - unlike the case for say the Wright brothers and their home-made alluminium engines that made their theories testable... any off-the-shelf motor, servo or rotational spring would do, depending on the specific application and its calculated requirements.

These kinds of concerns would come after confirmation of the putative asymmetry. The priority now is for others to either call me on my delusions, or validate 'em... but either way i'm thinking professional help might make for a quicker prognosis..

[MrVibrating]

@all & anyone - so should we wait another week or so for other forum members to stick their necks out with a verdict, or just call in the spetz natz first thing in the morning? I'm thinking call Steorn first, if they validate then call EarthTech, Clanzer et al, maybe some unis... get some YT vids up... dunno..

Plenty of folks here have years if not lifetimes invested in this so i don't wanna be that guy whipping it out from under everyone's noses.. trying to monopolise it would seem unconscionable under the circumstances, if this is real it's a deserved win for everyone here.. it ain't my ball to take home.. but let's not waste too much time sitting on it..?

We can't patent laws of nature, so if the asymmetry's valid then we'd have to nail down the descriptions for all possible implementations, quickly, before the cat's out of the bag. We can file this probably for free due to special concessionary clauses for such finds at the UK patent office - others may have similar policies. We could probably likewise seek assistance from our govt's energy departments - dev. grants or 0% loans or whatever, publicity, industrial intros and all that..

So that's one way we could keep it in-house here at BW... all major contributors to the cause as stakeholders of the rights..

Or we could just hand everything over to the experts, and hope someone remembers to thank us sometime between now and whenever the sky starts to fall in, or whatever godforsaken fallout this violation might wreak down the line...

[Dunesbury]

I call on delusion.
Meresburg illustration show weight not for dropping to spin wheel, weight shown for lifting demonstration.

Method used for spinning lollipop need back energy. Must come from lollipop.

Easy build. Lollipop and drop weight. If lollipop lift weight same height, call patent office.