Decoupling RKE from GPE, for fun and profit

[cloud camper]

This is fairy physics run amok.

Balanced wheels do not accelerate but follow the principle of least action.

A balanced wheel at rest will remain at rest and and one in rotation will
maintain rotation but will not spontaneously change speed.

The following WM2D simulation is exactly what JM specifies as we pair two
balanced weights on one side of the wheel with another pair diametrically opposite. This gives us a balanced system at all times. Click on the smaller image to start the sim.





Then in the next simulation we have two unbalanced arms but the entire
system is balanced. We show the backward moving outer weight just as
JM has specified. This is supposed to cause the inner weight to fly outwards.





From the sims we see that at no time is there any increase in rpm in the balanced configuration and only momentary spikes in the unbalanced configuration. No other coordinated movement of weights/riders will accelerate the wheel.

[daxwc]

Jim has stated Cloud that is not his wheel concept so obviously you are missing some mechanism.

[ME]

cloud camper,
Sometimes I also try to create some simulations and/or animation according to my own interpretation of some description... Simply because an image or animation is just easier to understand for all... It also occurred that my result did not seem to reflect the intention of the author, and sometimes they were happy to see it come alive...
Whatever I did, it's unfair to make some final conclusion on ones own interpretation and blame someone else it didn't work... but some things could be observed when watching the action.

So I understand correctly you have some minor issues with - or doubts about Jim's theory?

[cloud camper]

I agree this is probably not JM's exact concept.

But it doesn't matter as we still have the issue of multiple riders on a
carousel not being able to come up with a coordinated motion that would
accelerate a wheel.

We have never gotten a single explanation how this problem is dealt with.
(That's the fact free part).

JM has never stated any physics reason why the wheel would accelerate
but thousands of attempts at this scheme have only resulted in failure.

The burden of proof is on JM, not on me.

[ME]

There's not even a physics reason why a PM should be possible in the first place.... (even when gravity would be a factor)

This alone makes Jim's theory as valid as any other... and as prone to failure as any other (and yes: unless proven otherwise)

[daxwc]

But it doesn't matter as we still have the issue of multiple riders on a
carousel not being able to come up with a coordinated motion that would
accelerate a wheel.

Here is a coordinated motion you could use.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-QMmfDhrZxg

Or a pole spin top; not sure how the weights would fit in to propel it.

[Fletcher]

I agree this is probably not JM's exact concept.

But it doesn't matter as we still have the issue of multiple riders on a
carousel not being able to come up with a coordinated motion that would
accelerate a wheel.

We have never gotten a single explanation how this problem is dealt with.
(That's the fact free part).

JM has never stated any physics reason why the wheel would accelerate
but thousands of attempts at this scheme have only resulted in failure.

The burden of proof is on JM, not on me.

I'm not sure I agree with you CC ..

My memory is still pretty good I think so I'll give it a whirl.

For 10 years now jim_mich has had this theory that a wheel format could accelerate itself based on leveraging inertia of internal weight pairs swapping positions. It is a dynamic theory where the asymmetric force manifests only when the wheel is in motion, hence a Motion Wheel, which needs a push start (activation energy). He believes that as weights advance relative to the wheel and retrograde whilst moving radial distances in and out etc they have different KE's (they do outside the observer FoR for sure). This coordinated action causes a momentum transfer (impulse) to the wheel structure accelerating it. This is not completely counteracted/negated by a negative impulse reaction in his theory. Thus the wheel is 'net pumped' into gaining angular momentum and increasing Kinetic Energy until a limiting RPM is achieved due to geometry and 'lag' (weights have to accelerate and decelerate so need time).

Jim_mich was a competent WM2D user for many years. I asked him in the past whether he had built a WM sim of his wheel format and did it accelerate. The answer was that he doesn't use WM anymore other than to test movements because the effect didn't show in WM. IOW's the sim didn't self accelerate. A zero runner in WM, as are yours and mine WM sims of possibly similar constructions to his theory. [that last sentence was awkward]

He said that instead he had built a bespoke visual basic program (as he had done in the past) to capture all the forces in play. IOW's he built and programmed his own physics engine to build his bespoke sim. This showed the alleged gain in angular momentum and system KE above starting Input Energy. What we don't know is what the major differences are between and industry reliable physics engine such as WM and others like Solid Works Cosmos (built by thousands of engineers, physicists, and programmers) verses jim_michs bespoke programming. If his physics engine is more accurate and representative of the 'real world' interaction of masses in motion than the off-the-shelf physics engines then he is indeed a genius. Because nobody else saw what he saw as the deficiency or didn't recognize its significance to OU seekers.

So, if he couldn't get WM to show a self sustained gain based on his theory then I sincerely doubt that you or I would, which is what you see and keep reporting.

Food for thought !

ETA: one might conclude that WM et al have a virtual 'throttle limiter' built in. One that does not allow a CoE violation from a top-down computational approach, perhaps ?

[cloud camper]

Fun theory Fletch but this requires one to believe there are assymmetric dynamic forces in a 100% balanced wheel.

There are none and of course explains why JM's fluid driven wheel failed.

[Fletcher]

We will never know whether his bespoke sim is actually more accurate (and he is a genius) unless two things happen.

1. he releases his sim for independent analysis. Beyond my experience and pay grade I should think.

2. he produces a working wheel that we can't get to work in WM even though all is disclosed.

Right now I don't know where the loophole is in current math that he would exploit.

His theory is as good as anyone else's until proven not to be a theory.

[jim_mich]

I agree this is probably not JM's exact concept.

That is NOT my concept.

But it doesn't matter as we still have the issue of multiple riders on a
carousel not being able to come up with a coordinated motion that would
accelerate a wheel.

You are wrong.

We have never gotten a single explanation how this problem is dealt with.
(That's the fact free part).

If I gave out ANY more facts, then the whole concept would be known.

JM has never stated any physics reason why the wheel would accelerate
but thousands of attempts at this scheme have only resulted in failure.

Ah, but I have. It works like a mechanical Maxwell's Demon.

The burden of proof is on JM, not on me.

You are right. Full proof requires a physical build, which has been delayed by reasons that are personal and none of your business.

[ovyyus]

His theory is as good as anyone else's until proven not to be a theory.

Quite right.

His problem is not that he has a theory, it's that members here are weary of him constantly claiming special knowledge in order to bait others and then scorn them for asking 'wrong' questions. His perpetual 'secret' has become a perpetual pulpit. It's a recipe for making a pillock out of a genius.

CC, I think you should change the title of your sim. There seems no reason to think it is JM's idea - FWIW.

[Grimer]

To MrV

You said something about Steorn a week or so ago. I presume this relates to the Final ORBO PowerCube Designs. How are they coming on.

After the London fiasco I find it difficult to still take them seriously.

I'm using this thread of yours for this off-topic enquiry because it would appear that you don't read PMs.

[MrVibrating]

I check Vortex daily tho not subbed or commenting there:

http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/

But Craig Brown (007) and one or two others post Steorn news when it comes up.

His site is posting regular updates, as you'd expect:

http://freeenergy.news/

Encouragingly, an e-cig manufacturer has licenced the tech and developed their own never-die vape battery in-house - the kind of resounding validation that can't really be argued with - and apparently other licencees also have products pending.

The shit should be hitting the fan just in time for xmas..

I wish them the every success, they've certainly earned it and i personally learned a great deal from them. My one regret is that if we're successful here we're going to sink them along with everyone else, so i sincerely hope they make the best of their head-start..

ETA: and sorry no you're right, i never check PM's, will have a look and respond later...

[MrVibrating]

Found something else scisorjacks do.

They break momentum symmetry.

Normally, if a small mass is accelerated against the inertia of a larger one, the distribution of momentum should be equal and opposite - the smaller mass will have more velocity and thus KE for its momentum, and the larger one vice versa, but net P should be evenly divided between them, P1=P2... only with opposite signs.

Everyone follow and agree?


But look what happens when we attach those masses to either end of a scissorjack - they're both forced to accelerate at the same speed by the jack mechanism! P is not equilaterally apportioned!

Let's put some numbers on it: suppose one mass is 4kg, and the other 2kg.

The jack accelerates both by 2 meters / sec.

Thus for the larger mass, P=8, while for the smaller one P=4.

If 8 goes left and 4 goes right, then N3 says we have an excess of 4 going right - ie. the net system is accelerated.

Can this be correct? If it is correct, is it as significant as i'm thinking, or just a triviality?

I'll post up a quick sketch in a mo to help illustrate the issue...

[ME]

What we don't know is what the major differences are between and industry reliable physics engine such as WM and others like Solid Works Cosmos (built by thousands of engineers, physicists, and programmers) verses jim_michs bespoke programming. If his physics engine is more accurate and representative of the 'real world' interaction of masses in motion than the off-the-shelf physics engines then he is indeed a genius. Because nobody else saw what he saw as the deficiency or didn't recognize its significance to OU seekers.

FYI, as a former software-engineer I can safely say Jim doesn't necessarily needs to be a genius (as in: surpassing the intelligence of hundreds of engineers) to be able to program such a thing, while still able to produce a program surpassing the accuracy of any OTS physics engines. He "simply" has to meticulously program the machine for its task, so at least mildly above intelligence would suffice (he still could be a genius though).

What makes the task easier than perhaps expected lies in the things to be skipped:
*The highly complex drag/drop/connect/transform-capable user-interface (this saves at least 95% of the programming effort and bug-issues - this is not an exaggeration, it could be even higher)
*The multitude of design possibilities, scripting-possibilities, and information feedback: Just one program which basically animates the solution (perhaps some preprogrammed checkboxes, inputboxes, sliders etc.).
*The formula abstraction layer, because the formulas are already known for this specific task the program doesn't have to figure them out on itself.
*The real-time constraint: For an extreme complex situation the calculations could take hours to complete for just a one minute sim if that would be needed to get things right and keep the programming as simple as needed.

I think Jim is capable of such a thing....
...and still could have made a mistake (always a possibility).