Decoupling RKE from GPE, for fun and profit

[MrVibrating]

These are some of the implicit circular associations and constraints (so far) ...

mgh = 1/2mv^2

gh = 1/2v^2

g = v^2/2h

h = v^2/2g

v = sqrt(2gh)


f = ma

WEEP => energy = f x d :. energy = mad = mgh = 1/2mv^2

ETA: ME beat me to it.

Ditto.. wot i just said.. symmetry is reference frame dependent.

Decoupling output from input requires separate but interacting FoR's.

The energy of the prime mover resides in a separate inertial frame to that of the wheel's.

If this separate frame is nonetheless rotating with the wheel, then it can only be due to an effective N3 violation.

If B.'s wheels could only run vertically, then the effective N3 violation may be gravity-dependent. The alternative is that gravity was entirely incidental, in which case any kind of cyclic load such as springs would've allowed horizontal wheels. Therefore it is most likely that a gravitational interaction somehow affords the benefits of an N3 break.

It's the implications of the implications (the meta-implications?) that'll lead us out of the circle of constraints..

[MrVibrating]

I think you see your improper use of J instead of F as a small or insignificant matter; but it is not it is a huge matter.

Mr V; quote: To put it another way, under ordinary circumstances, achieving a constant rise in acceleration requires an increasing amount of input energy - increasing by the square of the rising velocity.

No such concept would come from Newton, Newtonian physics has nothing to do with J it is all Force. Gravity is a F.

F = ma; a is v/t so we have F = mv/t; or Ft = mv.

The only form of motion conservation you will find it your books is mv. The Law of Conservation of Momentum states that the mv in equals the mv out (in a closed system). You will never see KE in equals KE out; because it is not true.

Since Ft = mv; you could also state that Ft in equals Ft out for The Law of Conservation of Momentum.

This means that you can accelerate (with a F) a large mass and then transfer the motion to a small mass and you will have to pay the same Ft to get the motion back out. Getting it back out would mean a very long high energy rise.

Ten newtons applied for ten second on a 10 kilogram mass will give you 100 units of momentum and a velocity of 10 m/sec for the mass. Transfer that mv to a one kilogram mass and it will have to have a velocity of 100 m/sec; 1 * 100 = 10 * 10; this is the same mv and it will take the same Ft to get the 1 kilogram mass to stop. But the 10 kilograms moving 10 m/sec is 500 Joules and the 1 kilogram moving 100 m/sec is 5000 Joules. The one kilogram will rise 509.68 m; and the 10 kilograms will only rise 5.0968 m.

Your sims might give you KE in equals KE out but you will never find it in a science book, or in a mass transferring experiment. Newtonian physics always works and it needs no frames, heat, sims, or mirrors.

LOL i didn't actually conflate force and energy in their dimensions, i simply under-stated the amount of work a Joule can perform. I thank you for the correction, but the point is that whatever its value... it squares with velocity. So the soft underbelly of my little thesis here would be the potential pliability, or not, of the inertial frames against which KE is quantified.

The reason our focus is on energy is because we're looking for an energy asymmetry - this is why i usually analyse systems in terms of input vs output energies, and why i believe anyone not adopting such a vantage is putting themselves at a considerable disadvantage. If we wanna find free energy then we need to talk its language.

Classical physics encompasses mechanics and all thermodynamics (as well as electromagnetism and chemistry etc.) and energy is the fabric from which it is all interwoven. Force/distance integrals are the mainstay of Newtonian mechanics, and all such measurements are implicitly reference frame dependent. Motion is relative, and thus so is energy.

All these derivations, formalisations and equivalencies are brilliant and highly informative, but what we really need here is a little creative kink. The taboo i'm asking you to consider is how you might go about creating energy if you were marooned on a desert island with everything you could possibly ever need, plus an N3 violation.

Run that thought experiment and you'll discover an energy asymmetry from diverging reference frames - and this is what i want to gain access to.

It makes no qualitative difference if 1kg/m/s acceleration requires 1 Joule or 1.414 or twelvty.. all that concerns this hypothesis is that it accumulates as the square of velocity, and that N3 is likely both the lock, and the key to its undoing..

[MrVibrating]

(Sorry Fletcher :-) perhaps your write-up is more clear)

Because mathematically Ep=Ek (excluding the practical conversion losses) and basically a wheel goes as it goes... and then stops, we need to do something else.

Is it possible to have some stored Ep at 6-'o (perhaps in some fusee) and convert it to some Ek at 12-'o; and when things go down to 6-'o again it restores Ep?

Ep[Wheel, 12'-o] + Ek[Mech, 12'-o] <==> Ek[Wheel, 6-'o] + Ep[Mech, 6-'o]

Or is this in the end just a more complicated way to lose energy?

Marchello E.

Jeez what's with all the symmetry..? D'ya go to an orange grove to pick apples?

Bessler's wheels were paying out, big time. It was an open thermodyamic system, closed-loop trajectories through static fields yield zero net energy and the sky is blue.

Cast off this mantle of oppression than enslaves you! To hell with symmetry! Chuck a few spanners in the mechanism. Push the big red button. Think outside the spoon.. "there is no box.."

[pequaide]

You don't need to look for energy asymmetry it is all around us. What you need to do is figure out what is conserved.

And you keep misquoting Newton; the Three Laws are about Force and momentum they have nothing to do with the current use of the term “energy�.

[MrVibrating]

I am a little reluctant to write this as this is Mr V's thread and I don't want to dilute his focus and energies by waffling on in different directions.


Pequaide raises an additional observation about f = ma.

He is correct AFAIK that Newton wasn't concerned about energies (KE & GPE etc) but was concerned about forces and by deduction from rearranging the f = ma formula finding linear momentums.

To quote pequaide ...

f = ma and a = v/t therefore f = mv/t => ft = mv

So from the force formula momentum can be derived as either mv or ft.

He gives the example of 10N's of force being applied to a 10kg mass for 10 secs. So we can work out easily the momentum by either mv or ft at 100 units. That means that if time is 10 secs force must be 10N's. And if mass is 10kgs velocity must be 10m/s.

And he is right that if all momentum was transferred to a 1kg mass (or to stop it when it is doing 100m/s) would require the same momentum of 100 units. And if time is 10 secs then force must be 10N's.

So we know that linear momentum is conserved in that example, provided we have a mechanical way to fully transfer that momentum between two unequal masses. N.B. so far personally I haven't found a way to mechanically do that because each mechanical system is anchored in some way to the earth surface and 'absorbs' some of the momentum we wish to transfer making it less than 100% efficient transfer.

I think pequaide is of the opinion that the yo-yo despin device that nasa has used to stop satellites spinning on their axis achieves this. I guess it has its own reference frame being out in space and not anchored to earth.

Anyways, back to the full mv transfer example. Whilst mv = ft and is the same for the 10kg mass and the 1kg mass the displacements are different by a factor of 10. The 10kg mass travels 50meters and the 1kg mass travels 500meters. Force x distance = Joules and is energy equivalent under the Work Energy Equivalence Principle (WEEP), therefore although both masses would have the same momentum they have vastly different KE's as pequiade points out.

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

So basically his point is that (1/2)mV^2 squares with velocity, whereas the product of m & V doesn't. (sigh)

I think i get his angle now... he thinks that assigning primacy to KE over p is misconcieved as p is always conserved while KE is velocity-dependent, however the answer i've given him covers this - i'm specifically probing for a weakness in the mechanics of how KE squares to see if the component variables (especially displacement) are amenable to alternative manipulations; ideally getting a consistent, and thus linear, conversion of input energy to mass acceleration across a velocity range with regular, half-squaring KE. The input & output energies would thus diverge after two cycles because 2=2 and (1/2)*2*2 also equals 2, but 3=3 while half its square equals 4.5, and so on.

Here, mV is constant and for a given mass, so are the KE's - each in their own frame. But the input frame and output frame have different inertial references, and thus independent energies. It's two interacting systems, not a single self-consistent one.

Back to Mr V's hypothesis.

Phew..

Here he is also looking to throw out WEEP. By saying that in some circumstances the equivalence does not hold true. In linear relations it does because there is always a displacement factor proportional to speed etc. But we note that when gearing is used in pulley experiments that the inertia of the masses must be 'adjusted' by a factor dependent on relationship between masses and the gearing squared. This really means that gearing increases the distance or displacements. And since the mass must travel further faster then its inertia (or MOI) must also increase. We know this is true because otherwise we wouldn't have different 'Power' for different gearing options. N.B. Power (energy/time) is the rate of doing Work (f x d). e.g. we all know that taking off in 4th gear has a higher top speed but we will get to the finish line slower than the guy in 2nd gear from a standing start when the finish line is 100 meters away. We do use the same energy though! That means for the same force we cannot get across the finish line any faster regardless of what gear we are in (to use the analogy), but we can get there quicker.

This increase in inertia causes CoE (KE's against GPE) to be apparent and so far inescapable.

Pretty much.. WEEP still holds - the results depend on it - but if motion is relative then so is KE, and an N3 violation (or black-box equivalent) generates a divergent FoR.

Whether power ratios alone could accomplish this remains a tenuous speculation... the scissorjack tests i mentioned earlier seem much more approachable. Maybe tomorrow i'l have a chance to sim one..

Mr V is postulating that the MOI of a flywheel is unchanged at any rpm. Therefore it may be possible with the use of tandem fusees or some such to take a linear fall of GPE and thru constant variable gearing of fusees cause the flywheel to accelerate (gain RKE) up to factors of the GPE lost by the driver. That's because the MOI of a flywheel does not change.

It is not known by me whether the variable gearing of the fusees will run into the same problems as the inertia increase of linear systems with gearing ? Mr V articulates his hypothesis well and I would like to see the results of his experiments.

I support anyone who has a new idea and is willing to share and lay it out for others to follow. Especially when they are willing and able to spend resources building real world models and collect the data (Inputs and Outputs etc) and share it with us. More power to their elbows I say and maybe we'll learn something.

Nicely put. This will undoubtedly end in the traditional "oh fud" facepalm moment and unceremonious sinking, and until there's some kind of data it's all so much hot air.. But i still have a good feeling for it - for any mistakes i've made and will make, the one thing that seems right is that squaring RKE is weak flank, so if there's some way by which GPE can drive it linearly then however high its cost, there's a break-even threshold, beyond which lie clear gains.

Just to be able to see a potential asymmetry is a welcome diversion, i've been dry so long...

FWIW Fletch i'm attaching a few followup sims inspired by your thread. Nothing useful, you've probably tried similar doodles..

[ME]

Jeez what's with all the symmetry..?
...To hell with symmetry!

Well this symmetry is basically what's keeping us from getting something that works. You can throw in all the reference frames to break it, but in the end your frame of reference is just you standing in front of such a machine while hoping it works. And a wheel doesn't work on mere hope...

This seems to me the certain implication of the cross-symmetries you've so astutely summarised.. Combine them with the inevitable properties of an OU system - ie. one in which the same field has two different energies depending on how it's measured, and Bessler's asymmetry must've been inertial.

I think a break in symmetry/perpetuality can only come from a system in resonance; and where the only 'balance' is found where some stored potential slowly goes to zero when the wheel rotates, and restores this potential when the wheel is being stopped.
- or, (if I've understand you correctly) the rotating FoR is the balanced state.

However perpetuality works, there must be some way for the system to find balance - otherwise that system is not 'motivated' to do anything at all.

The 'motivation' is someway (I dare to say: the only way) a loss in potential, it can't come from the wheel (or a mechanism directly attached to the wheel) because it's axle should remain stationary, and the main mechanism should return to its original position after rotation (it can't float on itself).
So it can only come from a mechanism which works independent of the wheel, while still moving along the wheel path.

[Fletcher]

Thanks for the sims Mr V. It is always interesting look into others sims and how they might investigate the problem.

[MrVibrating]

You don't need to look for energy asymmetry it is all around us. What you need to do is figure out what is conserved.

And you keep misquoting Newton; the Three Laws are about Force and momentum they have nothing to do with the current use of the term “energy�.

Again, the term "energy asymmetry" has a specific meaning - it refers to the non-zero sum of an interaction's discrete input and output integrals.

So it makes no sense, under normal circumstances, to describe KE as "asymmetric" to momentum - the fact that different momentums can have equal KE or vice versa isn't a symmetry break, in the common sense.

I haven't intentionally quoted Newton anywhere, and multiplying forces by displacements is the very epitome of Newtonain (and all classical) mechanics. We're not gonna find an energy asymmetry by eschewing energy measurements.

Here, i'm not asking what is conserved - we already know that PE is equivaent to KE. Instead i'm asking how and why it's conserved - how is that conservation, that symmetry, made manifest in an interaction, and thus how we might turn it to our advantage.

Without any further prompting from me, you could run through the implications of a failure of Newton's 3rd law, find a corresponding energy asymmetry, quantify its potential and fully appreciate the relevence of inertial frames to KE measurements. Then everything i'm saying would click, and we'd be on the same page..

But if you cannot clearly see how energy symmetry is dependent upon Newton's 3rd law, then you cannot see the asymmetry i'm talking about and hence none of this is going to make much sense.

[MrVibrating]

Well this symmetry is basically what's keeping us from getting something that works. You can throw in all the reference frames to break it, but in the end your frame of reference is just you standing in front of such a machine while hoping it works. And a wheel doesn't work on mere hope...

Precisely. You've neatly laid out the goalposts. So let's move them...

All the dots you've connected in your little network of equivalencies are in the same inertial reference frame. But an N3 break spawns a new inertial frame, so then you'd have two such networks, two interdependent systems, each with their own differing values of the same fields.

Again, motion is relative to inertial frames, and hence so is energy. We can't freely manipulate the force of gravity nor change the height of the ground, so gravitational asymmetries seem unlikely. But maybe gravity allows us to spawn a second inertial frame, without having to violate N3.

Surely the greatest advantage of understanding how symmetry is enforced is the implicit knowledge of what is required to defeat it?

I think a break in symmetry/perpetuality can only come from a system in resonance; and where the only 'balance' is found where some stored potential slowly goes to zero when the wheel rotates, and restores this potential when the wheel is being stopped.
- or, (if I've understand you correctly) the rotating FoR is the balanced state.

But resonance alone is just elastic oscillation within the confines of standard F*d integrals - it's thermodynamically closed. The only situations in which net energy is altered through resonance is in an open thermodynamic system where the momentum of a mass or energy quanta is within a whole or close harmonic of the incident wavelength of an active field. Such a prospect in an inertial or gravitational system would seem to place unconventional requirements on the respective fields - not least the fact that gravity and inertia are usually considered passive. If you're harvesting ambient radio activity or light, resonance is definitely your meal ticket.

But for static homogenous fields we need something else. Nothing's gonna pump energy into our systems unless we first generate a gradient - an open system, from the inequitable interplay of two closed ones.

However perpetuality works, there must be some way for the system to find balance - otherwise that system is not 'motivated' to do anything at all.

The 'motivation' is someway (I dare to say: the only way) a loss in potential, it can't come from the wheel (or a mechanism directly attached to the wheel) because it's axle should remain stationary, and the main mechanism should return to its original position after rotation (it can't float on itself).
So it can only come from a mechanism which works independent of the wheel, while still moving along the wheel path.

Exactly! If PE and KE are equivalent then by definition, a working wheel depends upon an additional reference frame - the internal KE and PE are equal, and the external KE incidental to that internal system - which may depend on the wheel's motion, but is entirely agnostic to its balance of energy.

These footprints are unmistakable. The beastie we're tracking is an effective N3 violation.

Something that produces the same results as an N3 beak, but which depends upon rotation in a vertical wheel.

It cannot be a gravitational asymmetry, and all of its constituent integrals must be self-consistent.. but only in their respective inertial frames.

I think the scissorjack system i mentioned yesterday could show such a gain.. more on that later.

[pequaide]

You will imitatively find a solution to the problem of making free energy from gravity if you will take Newtonian mechanics to be what Newton said not from what others say he said; or post Newton add on.

Newton explained nothing away by the use of a frame; none; he use no frames.

Newton did not propose, or defend, the concept of energy; it was all linear momentum and the lines could be circular.

In the Dawn Mission, yo-yo despin device, the motion of 400 kilograms was transferred to 1 kilogram. This motion was transferred through a tether. The force in the tether had to be equal (and opposite) to itself, and the time over which this force acted had to be equal to itself.

According to Newton’s Third Law of Motion the momentum change on the ends of the tether had to be equal to each other. The spin momentum of the rocket went from 400 to zero; for a change of four hundred units of momentum. The one kilogram has 400 units of change by having an increase in velocity form one to 400 m/sec.

Smaller model of this event have been performed in the lab, the experiments are dropped as the event is video taped. The experiments cost about $20. Quality video cameras are now below $200.

[Fletcher]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yo-yo_de-spin

As an example of yo-yo de-spin, on the Dawn Mission, roughly 3 kg of weights, and 12 meter cables, reduced the initial spin rate of the 1420 kg spacecraft from 36 RPM down to 3 RPM in the opposite direction. The relatively small weights can have such a large effect since they are far from the axis of the spin, and their effect grows as the square of the length of the cables.

A yo-yo de-spin mechanism is a device used to reduce the spin of satellites, typically right after launch. It consists of two lengths of cable with weights on the ends. The cables are wrapped around the final stage and/or satellite, in the manner of a double yo-yo. When the weights are released, the spin of the rocket flings them away from the spin axis. This transfers enough angular momentum to the weights to reduce the spin of the satellite to the desired value. The weights are often released.

[MrVibrating]

KE = 1/2 (mV^2)

Scissorjack with a 1kg mass on each end.

Flying west at 10 m/s.

There's a timed spring release mechanism in the center of the jack. When it triggers, the jack expands, accelerating the masses in opposing directions by 1 m/s.

So the leading mass has a final velocity of 11 m/s relative to us. Its KE has risen from 50J to 60.5J.

But onboard the scissorjack, 2 * 1kg has been accelerated by 1 m/s - a cost of 1J, for a 10.5J gain in the stationary frame.

Because N3 was cancelled, the empty jack continues on at 10 m/s.

The trailing mass has a final velocity of 9 m/s = 40.5J, down from its inital 50J.

So, a 1J input workload in a moving frame has cancelled Newton's 3rd law, reduced one mass's KE by 9.5J and increased the other's by 10.5J, relative to the static frame.

If we sum the energies - 40.5 plus 60.5 equal 101J - we began with 2 * 1 kg @ 10 m/s, so 100J, plus 1J PE from the spring. Everything is accounted for. No net gain here.

What i find interesting however is the fact that a 1J input workload resulted in a 10.5J rise in energy of the leading mass.

If we also factor in the 9.5J decelerative workload on the other mass, then a single Joule of input work in the moving frame performed 20J of output work as measured from the stationary frame.

So perhaps this gives us half the toolkit for an asymmetric system.

All we're doing is adding the velocity of the net system to its internal displacements, as quantified from our static reference frame - using ambient motion to pump the 'd' of our input work F*d integral.

And although we also slowed a mass down, the system that performed both equal and opposite accelerations was not itself decelerated - the jack's FoR remains 10 m/s relative to us.

Likewise, if the two masses continue around in a loop, their net momentum is still at 10 m/s.

So, what we need is a system that gets its motion from gravity, and then which also allows us to pick'n'mix KE's between gravitational and rotational FoR's.. Ie. we wanna turn 1J of GPE into 10.5J of RKE and then use some of it to restore that GPE, while accumulating the difference.

All that would be required, in principle, is for gravity to absorb or replenish the 9.5J lost by the decelerated mass... then the net KE from the static frame starts squaring up, while the internal cost per cycle remains constant...

And the 'special' thing about scissorjacks would be that their instantaneous forces and counterforces (and thus momentums) can all cancel... potentially, providing the necessary conditions for establishing an independent inertial frame.

If N3 falters, sooner or later energy's gotta give. Decoupling GPE and RKE would become a matter of shuffling the deck in our favour.

[MrVibrating]

You will imitatively find a solution to the problem of making free energy from gravity if you will take Newtonian mechanics to be what Newton said not from what others say he said; or post Newton add on.

Newton showed that we could obtain objective measures by multiplying force and diplacement fields. We have the luxury of modern (ie. accurate) physics to hand; i see little benefit in the incomplete 17th century paradigms.

Newton explained nothing away by the use of a frame; none; he use no frames.

Motion is relative, so all of Newtonian mechanics is dependent upon inertial reference frames. Although not mentioned by word, they are implicit within the three laws, especially the non-inertial (observer) frame.

I fail to see the merits or relevence of these objections.

Newton did not propose, or defend, the concept of energy; it was all linear momentum and the lines could be circular.

Yes i've mentioned s'Gravesande repeatedly in this thread.

And also the functional equivalence of a linear KE curve to momentum.

If you find comparative energies so objectionable, then just stick with momentum - run the N3 break thought experiment - work out how to gain free momentum from a failure of Newton's 3rd law - and you'll see that the same masses have alternate velocities and thus momentums relative to one another, as compared to an observer in the stationary frame.

Same asymmetry, but you'd just be blinding yourself to the more useful measure, which is energy. Either way, there's a KE gain because there's a momentum gain, and both from the standard observer frame.

That's the asymmetry i'm aiming for, via alternative means. It's not complicated, if you just run the thought experiment and examine its conclusions.

In the Dawn Mission, yo-yo despin device, the motion of 400 kilograms was transferred to 1 kilogram. This motion was transferred through a tether. The force in the tether had to be equal (and opposite) to itself, and the time over which this force acted had to be equal to itself.

According to Newton’s Third Law of Motion the momentum change on the ends of the tether had to be equal to each other. The spin momentum of the rocket went from 400 to zero; for a change of four hundred units of momentum. The one kilogram has 400 units of change by having an increase in velocity form one to 400 m/sec.

Smaller model of this event have been performed in the lab, the experiments are dropped as the event is video taped. The experiments cost about $20. Quality video cameras are now below $200.

So the craft's angular momentum is dumped as linear momentum. Its RKE has been used as potential to accelerate two linear KE's. It could actually replace the scissorjack in the system i described previously - the two equal and opposite linear accelerations would leave its own linear motion unaffected, cancelling the N3 response, and the net system's displacement would add and subtract from the effective F*d integrals of the flung masses measured from the stationary frame. The spent RKE would replace the PE of a spring.

Would be more difficult to control than a scissorjack, but does the same job.

I'm guessing that wasn't your point though, and you're instead suggesting that the yo-yo despin device actually demonstrates a symmetry break.. to which my answer remains that for now, i don't think a symmetry break is what you think it is... KE can't be symmetrical to p because their dimensions diverge with velocity - it's apples to oranges. Momentum does have a conservative relationship to KE, but my whole emphasis in this thread has been that this relationship is virtually regulated by Newton's 3rd law... in other words if you want to harness a non-conservative relationship between p and KE then ultimately you need an effective N3 exception, and divergent FoR's.

Again, i appreciate that it may not seem immediately obvious why energy conservation should be dependent upon Newton's 3rd law, however there's little point in me re-explainng it if it's going in one ear and out the other... you need to think this through for yourself.

[MrVibrating]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yo-yo_de-spin

As an example of yo-yo de-spin..[..]

Thanks, i actually needed that..

[Fletcher]

LOL ...