Decoupling RKE from GPE, for fun and profit

[daxwc]

Me:

We still don't know Jim's theory...

Me with all due respect we do know Jim’s theory. We just don’t how exactly how he expects to achieve it mechanically. Jim is never going to tell you, because it is the same game he has played for years, so in the end there is no use salivating over the bait.

I am sorry that you are trying to glean information through the flack. You will have less agitation searching the archive. The majority of people also dislike toilet plungers till you need one.

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

Hi E 1,

your quote,

The energy is converted from GPE to KE and back, but it doesn't get "lost". It remains in the Solar system. Do you know why the sun is moving forward in time?

Lost was a bad choice of words on my part, used would have been a better word, I will change it.

Your bad choice of words is back, it can never go back, time has moved on, and so has the Planet, and it’s a new PE position not an old one.

One gravity maybe a conservative force, but the interactions between more than one gravity does not seem to act that way, wherein some people think you can get added KE for no energy inputs, and free PE resets (it will have to do for now). I can understand the thinking and its logic but cannot subscribe to that way of thinking. To me any increase in KE requires an input of energy.

The Sun is moving in its Orbit. The whole Universe is moving forward in time, and gravity is the main driving force, this should be a natural Law, "Gravity is the main driving force of the Universe" should it be over looked.

TLW

[ME]

Me with all due respect we do know Jim’s theory. We just don’t how exactly how he expects to achieve it mechanically.

Yes we can all reread the recent version. "Motion from motion".
And with mutual respect, we all "have"/"know" some half-baked theory how Perpetual Motion would/could/should be achieved, if it wasn't for that pesky little mechanical part...
Basically we don't actually "know" anything about it, we have some hints at best.

Jim is never going to tell you, because it is the same game he has played for years...

That's your assumption (for decades now?), but let's be optimistic as he says: "All will be disclosed". Oh well... at least someone will, at some time, in some future.

so in the end there is no use salivating over the bait.

There's no time, the line is cut every time he throws it out... even (in) his very own thread.
At least that 'bait' works brilliantly: Jim simply mentions "motion wheel", and the pagecount rapidly goes up with a minimum of five; - but I'm still unsure the current type of response is the healthy one.
I'm simply and only curious about this theory, even in case it ends-up being useless... Just get it over with.
Worst-case: one lousy theory gained, a lot of upcomming whining pages hopefully evaded.

I am sorry that you are trying to glean information through the flack

What's wrong with trying?
Is "trying" not part of our quest to Perpetual Motion?
Or the whole purpose of this discussion-board for that matter....
Isn't it possible to try to hear Jim out, so he gets a chance to try to reply with a bit more elegance?
Can't we just try to decouple this recurring event from behavioral neglect? Just for... I don't know: fun and profit?
Ah well, at least I tried...

[daxwc]

I understand you ME, there is nothing wrong with trying. I will try to bring you up to speed.

You have heard Jim's theory on his motion wheel already hundreds of times compounding motion through motion, making excess energy.


Here is Jim's vague concept as guessed at by Bill after years of baiting:

A weight inside a wheel will experience CF as it rotates with the wheel and that force can be increased or decreased by moving the weight forwards or backwards relative to the rotating wheel. I think what you describe is a pair of interconnected weights arranged so that the outer weight moves backwards, relative to the wheel, as the inner weight moves forwards, thereby using the relatively higher CF of the inner forwards moving weight to force a switching of positions with the relatively lower CF of the outer backwards moving weight. That seems to be the only system that would allow both weights to be balanced with each other if held at the same radius within the wheel, as you describe.

Here is where Jim admits that is his concept:

From: Jim Randall
To: Bill McMurtry
Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2013 11:12 AM
Subject: From Jim_Mich

Hi Bill,
It seems Ralph was right, I said too much on the Bessler Wheel forum. And you guessed a big portion of my wheel idea. I'm not prepared to talk details about it just yet. But could you do me a very big favor? Could you edit or remove the next to last paragraph of your post #108554 where you describe your concept of my wheel, so that I don't have any problems with the new 'First to File' patent system here in the USA? In return I promise you will be at the top of my shipping list for the small 'proof of principle' model wheels I'm working on.
Thanks,
Jim Randall
aka Jim_MIch

I will let Jim take it from here and continue.

[ME]

Could be something... or nothing.
Thanks for the reference.

- - -

Somehow reminds me of this video visualizing the swim stroke of little shrimps: <Youtube>
The recovery stroke should differ from the pushing one. When balanced it wouldn't go anywhere. It still needs energy though.

Vorticity dynamics reveals the formation of a vortex ring structure at the tip of each arm at the beginning of the power stroke.
This two vortex ring structure evolves dramatically with time as the stroke progresses.
Most interestingly, the outer circulation weakens while the inner circulation strengthens over the power stroke.
In addition, the outer vortices translate backwards while stretching from the induced fields of the inner vortices.
Ultimately the outer vortices seem to be entrained into the inner strong vortices resembling a leap-frog phenomena of a two-vortex ring system.
The gaining strength of the inner vortex correlates well with the acceleration and forward movement of the larvae.

We also investigated the motion of a onearm brine-shrimp larvae which also showed the dynamics of only a single vortex system. The resultant motion was therefore a circular trajectory for the larvae

Marchello E.

[WaltzCee]

I'm a believer of Bessler's wheels. It seems that Bessler found perpetual motion.

I don't think Bessler knew what he did. My sense is it was an application of star gate technology that exploits time dilation; but at the molecular level.

It's like the cosmos meets the quantum.

[ME]

You could be right !
It's another way of saying: When the belief in yourself is strong enough, some of that effort could tunnel into focus at some future point and still be clueless how that happened.
Or did I make this up myself? hmm....

[cloud camper]

I understand you ME, there is nothing wrong with trying. I will try to bring you up to speed.

You have heard Jim's theory on his motion wheel already hundreds of times compounding motion through motion, making excess energy.


Here is Jim's vague concept as guessed at by Bill after years of baiting:

A weight inside a wheel will experience CF as it rotates with the wheel and that force can be increased or decreased by moving the weight forwards or backwards relative to the rotating wheel. I think what you describe is a pair of interconnected weights arranged so that the outer weight moves backwards, relative to the wheel, as the inner weight moves forwards, thereby using the relatively higher CF of the inner forwards moving weight to force a switching of positions with the relatively lower CF of the outer backwards moving weight. That seems to be the only system that would allow both weights to be balanced with each other if held at the same radius within the wheel, as you describe.

Here is where Jim admits that is his concept:

From: Jim Randall
To: Bill McMurtry
Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2013 11:12 AM
Subject: From Jim_Mich

Hi Bill,
It seems Ralph was right, I said too much on the Bessler Wheel forum. And you guessed a big portion of my wheel idea. I'm not prepared to talk details about it just yet. But could you do me a very big favor? Could you edit or remove the next to last paragraph of your post #108554 where you describe your concept of my wheel, so that I don't have any problems with the new 'First to File' patent system here in the USA? In return I promise you will be at the top of my shipping list for the small 'proof of principle' model wheels I'm working on.
Thanks,
Jim Randall
aka Jim_MIch

I will let Jim take it from here and continue.

All proven rubbish many times over as this is just a variation of multiple riders on a carousel trying to coordinate their motion to accelerate the
wheel.

Nothing here but height for width exchanges and no squaring function as required for a wheel to gain energy.

But if JM thinks he has another fish going for the bait, he will play his
game one more time. Everyone else has lost interest and gone home.

[MrVibrating]

Yes we can all reread the recent version. "Motion from motion".

Hadn't read that thread but gotta admit the points Jim's raised in the OP pretty much mirror my own more recent conclusions...

The trick is gonna be doing it without draining the momentum of the source frame.

If everyone currently thinking about gravity wheels instead focused on how to apply vertical rotation to leverage the same net effects as an N3 break, we'd be rolling in no time..

It's not a gravity wheel we're after, it's an effective N3 break.

There's something that an N3 break does, that vertical rotation can also do.

If you can find it, your input energy will remain constant, relative to the rest frame of the wheel's inertia, and so rising linearly with velocity, while KE from the static frame squares with velocity.

This is not merely a "theory" - it is unimpeachable logic, the incontrovertible implications of the known facts. It is all that is left, the only clear energy asymmetry that fits with and resolves all of the other clues.

Eliminating the possibility of gravitational asymmetries is not easy. Our first priority is to question everything, especially first principals. While it's easy enough to digest the obvious objections, there's always a "what if?" that places a prospective system beyond the bounds of a given classification - the potential range of counter-balancing schemes limited only by imagination. It takes time and effort to draw a line under it, but it can be done. I have, so has Jim and doubtless others - my whole point here is that it's the inevitable, inexorable conclusion of a full consideration. An objective axiom, and a waypoint that everyone will eventually reach.

The only other field left then is mass, inertia, momentum. and KE. And here, straight away we see there IS an implicit energy gradient - every mass in the universe has the net KE of the entire physical universe, relative to the sum of all possible reference frames. And this applies equally to rotating frames. A wheel rotating at any given speed is also rotating at every other speed possible, in both directions - all directions, actually - and all at the same time, without any conflict. In fact, if red shift horizon is taken into account, then every mass has infinite KE relative to those beyond it. But all of this is completely trivial and irrelevent of course, unless we can tap a little of it.

More specifically, we don't wanna tap it. That would be a rubbish energy gradient. We already have flywheels. What we want is to make a source frame that can be sustained indefinitely - either freely replenishing its tapped momentum (which just seems to shift the goalposts), or else finding a way to beat N3 and so extract excess work from the frame without slowing it down.

This is our endgame, as it was Besslers... so how to proceed? We know his masses moved in and out radially, so what changes with radius? CF / CP, obviously (as Jim points out), but such translations at constant velocity are just as energy-symmetrical as GPE loops. So that seems futile.

But something else changes, too, with radius - displacement; A pair of masses at the perimeter of the wheel are travelling a greater distance per cycle than when they're closer to the axis. Work performed under the same force over the same angular increment has a larger displacement the greater the radius at which it is performed, for a given RPM. So perhaps there's another angle of attack for modulating the d of an F*d integral..

As for actually tackling N3 head-on - or even turning it against itself - i'm sure we've barely scratched the surface here. If we'd expended half as much effort on N3 as we have on gravity... but i've said it already. Scissorjacks seem to provide one approach, at least momentarily, but the problem remains of how to tap the gain without equalising the FoR difference. Logically, we should rather be anticipating the exact opposite dynamic - that as net velocity grows the FoR divergence will widen, and so thus the asymmetry, our PE gradient.

So while i've no dog in whatever races might be running here, Jim's right - it's "motion from motion". The more, the better. Ultimately though, i think that a more succinct framing of the issue should center on the N3 barrier that stands in its way.. "motion from controlled counter-motion" isn't quite so catchy, but this is the task ahead.

[ME]

MrV, that's exactly the reason why I'm interested in what Jim has to say (without the interruptions).
And that's why I posted that shrimp video to get an idea how weights (like the vortices in that video) could 'swim' around.

[jim_mich]

All proven rubbish many times over as this is just a variation of multiple riders on a carousel trying to coordinate their motion to accelerate the wheel.

Multiple riders on a carousel is indeed a rubbish concept. Such is your concept, cloud camper. It is NOT my concept. Again you are posting lies about me. What is it with you people?

If you have a simple flat playground carousel, and you place four riders on the carousel, and nothing else, and let them move as they wish without interconnection to ground, they will NOT be able to produce perpetual motion. I guarantee it won't happen. If such was the case then men would have found perpetual motion long ago.

Take note, these four riders on a carousel do not constitute my motion-wheel.

Shame on you, cloud camper. Stop posting lies. Stop twisting my words.

[jim_mich]

Finally a few sane forum members, ME and MrVibrating.

Being that I was recently out-of-the-loop here, please, someone explain what is N3? Is this some sort of Grimer naming convention? Bessler wheel seekers sometimes act like cult members, making up their own vocabulary.

[Fletcher]

It's simply easier than writing Newton's 3rd Law, jim_mich.

FoR is also easier than writing Frame of Reference.

Especially when they are mentioned multiple times.

[jim_mich]

Thanks, Fletcher.

[MrVibrating]

MrV, that's exactly the reason why I'm interested in what Jim has to say (without the interruptions).
And that's why I posted that shrimp video to get an idea how weights (like the vortices in that video) could 'swim' around.

It's apt - engineers usually only consider vortices as little sucky tornadoes dragging down efficiency. But what does Nature do? Take two negatives and turn them into a positive, to accomplish something otherwise impossible. A shrimp can do that with just a few hundred neurons... we must have twice that many amongst us and we're bickering like old ladies. If the friggin' seamonkeys solve Bessler's wheel before us we'll be totally defenseless.