Flippin' Flywheels

[MrVibrating]

...there is one thing i like about the "buy low sell high" schemes, which is that CoE is like a dog - it only cares about the here and now. All its calculations are perfect and immutable, based on the instantaneous conditions that prevail.

It can't know if those conditions were different earlier, or going to change later. If you 'borrow' some energy from an output stroke (dropping a mass, say), its happy with a gentleman's agreement that you or someone else is going to pick it up again.

It can't fortell the future, nor change the past. IOW, if we can set a logic trap for CoE, then short of some kind of 'Final Destination' mystical influence, there's F/A CoE can do to stop us.. an asymmetric interaction will have exactly the right amount of momentum and energy, for the conditions under which those integrals were apportioned. IOW we're relying on CoE to do its job, by the book, at every step in an OU interaction... so the gain depends upon and happens precisely because of CoE, rather than in spite of it.

If we could paraphrase Noether's theorem into a TL;DR for OU research, the basic concept is that CoE does not and cannot be applied to time-variant interactions. Square peg, round hole.. Pathoskeptics point to Noether as a reason why OU is impossible... but on the contrary, it's a recipe book telling us exactly what won't work, but also, what will..

Somehow we need to move the goalposts between input and output strokes of an interaction, switching from a regime in which energy or momentum is a function of time, to one in which it isn't.. or else a differential between comparative rates of change of force, or something..

One way or another, time's the key in all this.

[MrVibrating]

So the trick would be being able to do this cyclically - if we can keep adding energy while both interacting masses are stationary relative to one another, then we're OU by the second impulse.

Let's hope we could do that without adding energy.

I didn't know where to put my reply, so I dumped it here: Link

The N3-worrying penduwheel i had in mind was the one described here, in which the pendulum is suspended co-axialy against the wheel, and swung against gravity.

So a torque's applied at the hub, one mass goes one way, the other goes the other way, but then gets reversed by gravity, resulting in this admittedly rather transient N3 violation back at BDC.

At that instant, mass and reaction mass are stationary relative to one another, yet moving relative to us, in the same time, place and vector.

This is cool because it's a perfectly trivial way to produce a result you could probably win money off down the pub.. at least, if you know one where physicists hang out. But it's something that rotating systems can do, that linear ones can't. Vertical, gravitating, systems, to boot. And the GPE interaction's perfectly symmetrical, yet the N3 anomaly, such that it is, nonetheless depends on gravity impartially doing its thang.. ticks a lotta boxes, for a starting concept.

Just couldn't see a way to that second, guaranteed-OU, stroke, unfortunately. I'm now trying to put my head back there to see if i maybe missed a hidden door or something..

[MrVibrating]

Sorry i missed a couple of posts back there:

Mr V

With masses moving in / out , at different raidi , with changing moi , thus with changeing position in a wheel where there are 2 flippen flywheels , to which outside mass will you associate a inside mass if they are on opposing sides of the wheel during the changing of moi .

Maybe it is one way of getting the weights on one side of the wheel when on the descending side .

I don't know! No freakin' idea mate.. i'm just struggling to divine the elements, as it were...

The hammer toys seem to be indicating orthogonal orientations WRT the eyelets on the shaft (B), which may be synchronised, or else also 90° out of phase, as well as angle.

If the latter, then an 'uphill' leg of one MoI decreasing, is coupled to a 'downhill' leg of the other while it's increasing.

If the former, then they're both rising or falling in MoI at the same time.

Either way, to find a momentum asymmetry we'll need to consider inertially-induced torques, inertially-induced counter-torques (or especially, any lack thereof), and also gravitational ones (positive and negative and any counterforces). Additionally, the inertial torques can be induced by angular as well as linear motions.

So there must be some opportunity for additive or subtractive boosting or nulling or something that'll yeild us a non-zero sum of momentum..

Or else, some way of multi-staging accelerations, bypassing N3 for long enough to generate an energy gain from piggybacking a transient rise in momentum, or something. But as noted, energy gain alone can't supply the momentum we'd be losing to any applied loads - we really need an effective N3 violation; that gives us free momentum, and free energy almost as an afterthought..

[MrVibrating]

Mr V .. Bessler said that weights gained force from their own swinging.

His one-way wheels were with positive torque at the get-go. It is alleged by some that they always had positive torque in any position but I personally can't fathom that scenario. I can imagine more positive torque than negative torque per sector to cause imbalance of rotational forces i.e. momentum accumulation as the causation of his self-moving wheels.

It seems logical given the above that the 'in and out' movement of say weighted levers was caused by gravity. As everyone knows who has designed gravity driven PMM's they don't work. We quote the age old 'height for width' conundrum. What this essentially means is that for any displacement of two weights within a wheel (one farther out from the axle and the other closer to the axle) to give the illusion of the possibility of continuous OOB wheels they have equal positive and negative torques which leads to no torque force imbalance and keeling / eventual stopping.

We know that no leverage technique or mechanics can cause one weight to acquire greater GPE than was given by way of KE and GPE loss of another in that above illusion. Therefore the imbalance of positive torque must come from the actual transitioning of the weights (or weighted levers). Bessler said that nothing could be accomplished without his "connected principle" (i.e one repositioning weight system affecting another thru probably flexible rope and pulley connections).

So it seems that (from MT) there had to be 'connectedness principle"; "correct handle-construction"; correct application of the stork's bills".

MT is literally littered with funky 'A's with the v bar; they are part of every pantagraph / stork's bill / scissor. We know they are just force multipliers and can not increase energy for work to violate CoE. They can however be used to take a circular fall path of weight and turn that into a linear pull or push (somewhat like a Peaucellier linkage but only much more simple). Or conversely take a linear fall path and turn it into a circular push or pull. Everybody who has played with these toys can instinctively see this possibility immediately.

So, taking all above (and considering your excellent self-discussion in this thread) I am left with the conclusion that the connected principle is the key i.e. how the dual displaced weights are physically linked, to cause the excess positive torque for self-sustaining rotation. And we only have a few permutations of linear and circular weight paths. But it points to either an N3 break or MOI disturbance of some hitherto unknown or unrecognized physics benefit. It has the illusion of being a continuous OOB wheel but causation is torque force imbalance, IMO.

Just my shared thoughts as I sync into your thread.

Totally agree, and thanks for sharing, it's a real relief just to know someone else is on the same page..

Yes, you'd think that the "connectedness" will probably apply to which forces are offset against which.. And this is precisely what i've been chewing over, just trying to establish all the reactions..

For instance, one question i keep coming back to that of a reciprocal radial force accompanying an angular acceleration; for instance, when we move a mass radially we induce a positive or negative inertial torque - so conversely, is that interaction symmetrical - ie. does a positive or negative applied torque induce the same corresponding linear radial forces and displacements?

My shockingly belated realisation just last week that an energy asymmetry alone is insufficient without a momentum gain, has now convinced me that an effective N3 violation is the only thing to be looking for.

As for what to 'connect' to what, obviously we have positive and negative torque signs, of various provenances, to play against one another.. slightly more specifically, any sustainable or just transient but cyclical connection between an accelerating mass and its reaction mass is gonna be of interest..

Alternately-moving masses, especially those changing their MoI's, might share a GPE load as an intermediary connection for changing up or re-apportioning relative energy and momentum values...

If the wheel's output torque is reactive as we've deduced, then whatever connects the wheel housing to the torque-inducing members has some degree of variability, so the nature of this connection is also important..

Looking back thru MT, the actual context of the term as used in reference to MT 9 is the introduction of weights, where he's actually making a sweeping distinction between his wheel and everyone else's attempts at gravity wheels - all the ones he'd seen, like MT 9, used "simple" weights, with nothing attached to the belts or chains.

So his princple seems to involve connecting something else - besides weights - to belts or chains connecting non-simple weights...

"Simple" here presumably means 'conventional' - rather than implying something extraordinary about his weight designs, he's perhaps admitting there's something unconventional about his weights themselves.. as well as how, and to what, they (or their chains) were connected..

"Gained force from their own swinging" is hard to interpret as anything other than inertially-induced torques, to me, yet, as i've been saying, merely raising the energy value of a conserved momentum - no matter how freely - can't of itself explain the continual replenishment of the momentum exported along with the output RKE. Double a momentum's energy value for free, and you find that harvesting the energy gain means extractating half our system momentum. So we'd need a way of securing more fresh momentum - inertia, velocity or both - from within our isolated statorless rotating system..

So either the energy gain was one asymmetry, which was then used to pay for a separate momentum asymmetry... (!) or else we're just looking for the one N3 break - and this must be what Bessler's referring to with the 'swinging' clue.. swinging, whatever it means, has to involve momentum gain, rather than just energy gain for a conserved momentum.

[MrVibrating]

Unlike all other automata, such as clocks or springs, or other hanging weights which require winding up, or whose duration depends on the chain which attaches them, these weights, on the contrary, are the essential parts, and constitute the perpetual motion itself;

since from them is received the universal movement which they must exercise so long as they remain out of the centre of gravity;

and when they come to be placed together, and so arranged one against another that they can never obtain equilibrium, or the punctum quietus which they unceasingly seek in their wonderfully speedy flight, one or other of them must apply its weight at right angles to the axis, which in its turn must also move."

- Johann E. E. Bessler, 1717

Sounds exactly like an ordinary OOB wheel where weight displacements cause torque which turns the axle. But everything must be reset (restore GPE) to its original position and form to complete a cycle. Bessler gives the explanation that it can never find equilibrium (keel position) which is not an ordinary OOB system in which we are well versed.

So I contend that the illusion is an OOB gravity driven system for Bessler's PMM. Bessler may have even believed that at some level. He certainly wrote it up like that. The reality is gravity and mechanics alone cannot create a PMM that forever seeks but cannot find equilibrium !

So something else must have been going on in the odd arrangement of weights and mechanics. That leads to more positive torque than negative torque which pushes thru the equilibrium barrier and limitation of ordinary OOB PMM's.

So in my mind, given that Bessler is unlikely to have invented a new type of unknown mechanics that disobeys the Law of Levers then something in his physical arrangements produced an effect never before seen. That being a machine that seeks but cannot find equilibrium. Since mechanics are standard and adhere to Archimedes Law of Levers then that leaves the "Connectedness Principle" as the prime suspect. He even says nothing can be achieved without it (along with his PM Principle).

IMO's .. the Connectedness Principle, whilst a linkage or sorts, must move connected cross wheel weights in a certain way; one that produces excess positive torque. But it is unlikely that a series of ropes and pulleys are any great secret and significance in themselves, so it must be the cordinated actions that they foster that is the secret mechanical PM Principle. But the cause of the excess torque in one direction is the the true underlying secret of his PM Principle.

And that would seem to be along the lines of what you are dowsing for Mr V, when all said and done.

ETA: Bessler's wheels were large diameter and quite thin cylinders. There were about eight weight movements heard per rotation.

There is a palusible explanation for such a large surface area. That is that the mechs took up a lot of room, especially in one form (shape). And to not overlap mechs (with inherent problems) he needed a large radius which give available space. Furthermore ropes potentially can be either taut or slack at times in any 'connected' design, which means intermittent sagging and that requires room to hang. It also explains why some witnesses could see no weight movements in the outer reaches of his wheel (sighted thru the gaps in the slats).

And his first wheel was only 4 inches thick - his latter wheels 12 to 18 inches thick. The thickness could be increasing (but still relatively thin) to accommodate multiple ropes and pulleys systems, perhaps side by side.

These are good insights - i hadn't previously considered that these large build sizes might simply be a practical concession, rather than primarily performance-driven.. which would be consistent with something needing room for an extreme change in aspect ratio.. especially in the radial plane..

The other element that may come into play here is the diametric weight lever.

I've even entertained the notion that both this and the jacks might be equivalent metaphors for the same thing..

More likely though i think is the possibility that both are practical elements of a working principle - the diametric weight lever operating the jacks, seems a fairly-consistent interpretation, though i've little notion of anything useful this alone may accomplish..

I've found that these levers aren't particularly powerful, not least in relation to MoI-varying masses attached to jacks. The toys page seems to imply that the jacks have discrete input and output ends, but then again, they're just depicted as 'normal' scissorjacks. Still, the similar handles attached to the lower hammer toy, but not the upper one, suggest to me that the jacks and lower toy are operated by the same field - and that the upper hammer toy responds to a different field, or else, in a different way..

Connectedness principle, PM principle.. somehow, he has to be skirting around the practical requirements for an N3 break.

Short of some serendipitous new revelation, hacking the problem slowly from both ends like this seems the only way forwards.. it's finding that intersection between Bessler-speak and the de facto physics of a classical symmetry break. The most consistent such lead so far is some kind of momentum asymmetry.

One final point that does come to mind as that he mentions being able to multiply the effect up "as much as fourfold"; so this must tie in somehow with your observations re. space requirements.. furthermore, if he means to imply that each successive stage of multiplication is equal in magnitude, then this doesn't correlate well with multi-staging inertial interactions, wherein the gain is exponential for each nested level of accelerated momentum. IOW if a two-stage interaction quadrupled the power, he'd've described it accordingly, so "fourfold" probably means just that - a linear multiplication.

But it doesn't sound like any arbitrary limit either, so perhaps relates to the preponderance of squares, or stampers, or windows etc. etc..? A maximal 4x efficiency increase, within an available given diameter.. anything so particlar has to be of cross-referencing value..

[Dwylbtzle]

gentlemen- gentlemen -- i believe the scientific term is 'flibbertigibbet widget flipper'

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

"OMG", He's right!

I was never any good at using correct physics terminology, I just thought the word Leverage covered the lot!

[Dwylbtzle]

http://s22.photobucket.com/user/roysand ... b.jpg.html

flipper
flipper
faster than fliiipperrrr

http://s22.photobucket.com/user/roysand ... a.jpg.html

[MrVibrating]

Looking back thru my notes that inspired this concept:



...i'm not sure i actually tested what i'd set out to.. the original idea i actually scribbled was "pull a mass in using an A or Y linkage while decelerating the counter momentum via an outbound mass", and there's a few further permutations that spin off from that core concept..

- suppose we have two identical flyweights or flywheels. Two identical angular inertias, would be the point.

- we could use an 'A' or 'Y'-shaped (or M, W etc.) linkage to allow a mass to fly outwards, under CF, while imparting two opposing torques against the paired angular inertias, accelerating one, while decelerating the other.

- while this is happening, we could pull another mass inwards, that is anchored to just one or other of these angular inertias

- so for example we could draw a mass inwards while it is riding the decelerated flyweight, or else the accelerated one

- and conversely, we could send a mass back out while it is riding the accelerated or decelerated flyweight caused by another weight coming in or out while splitting its momentum change between both flyweights..


So the general idea is that as one mass moves outwards, it is acting upon both angular inertias, accelerating one while decelerating the other, and at the same time, an opposing mass travels back in or out in the opposite direction to the former, but while only applying its inertial torque to one or other angular inertia.

I'm not sure my inital attempt above sufficiently eliminates the concept..?



__________
ETA: just to clarify the WM2D config in the above anim, what you're seeing is two identical discs, one on top of the other, sharing separate bearings on the same axle.

Each disc contains a weight, sliding in and out on a rail. The green weight rides the green disc, and the red weight rides the red disc.

Finally, the green weight also has a rigid connecting rod to the red disc, and the red weight has an identical conrod to the green disc.

The system is given some angular momentum by spinning it up whilst everything is locked down, and then the mechanism is unlocked and allowed to do its own thing, which is entirely passive and without springs, motors or anything else (gravity is disabled) - just a perfectly elastic interplay of radial and angular inertias.

[MrVibrating]

Something i feel obliged to admit, at this point, is that although i still see no means by which such an asymmetry could arise, an effective GPE asymmetry could, in principle, produce excess momentum, along with its energy gain, and so drive other loads directly from its own motion, as Bessler's wheels did.


The other asymmetry that would also work would be the inertial asymmetry in which MoI is increased (as by sending a mass outwards), but without incurring the normal deceleration that this naturally induces.


Simply being able to pull a mass inwards freely (ie. as by somehow balancing against or nullifiying CF), as noted, cannot produce momentum, only raising the energy value of the conserved momentum, and so would require some further means of generating excess momentum, which seems to pretty much preclude any aspiring CF-attenuating schemes.


So the landscape of potentially useful symmetry breaks looks something like this:

- an N3-violating but otherwise fully-elastic collision

- an inertial asymmetry, in the form of an outbound mass that doesn't induce deceleration, as would normally occur

- a gravitational asymmetry; picking a mass up when it's light, and dropping it when it's heavy, by whatever means of gravity / mass or effective weight control

Not telling us anything really new, then.. although i should stress that i'm not suggesting this opens the door to the possibility of a GPE asymmetry; it just means that this single aspect of the wheel's operation - its ability to continually drive attached loads directly from its axle, and so constantly replenish the momentum being shed - is consistent with a GPE asymmetry, as well as an inertial one.

Conversely, we should keep in mind various other characteristics that seem positively more inclined towards inertial than gravitational asymmetries, such as the preferential running speed regardless of whether the applied load was raised, lowered, or unattached, and also the rapid acceleration up to this speed. Likewise, Bessler's apparent eschewing of overbalancing schemes, and insistence on the necessity of being statorless, all seem to point to an inertial asymmetry over a gravitational one.

The apparent necessity of vertical orientation of the wheel suggests gravity plays some role - but the winning principle could be a gravitationally-assisted inertial asymmetry, or else an inertially-assisted gravitational one.

The latter possibility has less going for it (for the reasons outlined above) - some kind of gravitationally-assisted inertial asymmetry remains the most plausible liklihood, as far as i can see...

Beyond that, i'm still pretty much in the doldrums, ideas-wise.. this new realisation of the need for generating momentum over mere energy has left me somewhat at a loose end. It has to be said, again, that the most straightforward, simple and consistent solution would be an effective violation of Newtons' 3rd law. That could potentially match all the performance characteristics in one fell swoop..

A gravitational asymmetry could generate momentum along with energy, but couldn't explain the preferential running speed and statorless requirement.

Furthermore the source of the momentum in such a scenario remains classical, not quantum - ie. we'd either be propelling or braking the earth - in essence, the earth is mutually pulling itself 'upwards' towards a mass that keeps 'hyperspacing' further up, away from it; if we can pick the mass up again for free, then we're presumably not pushing the earth away in the process, as would normally occur. So the momentum source is also applying a unidirectional, unbalanced force against the earth.

So even if it were possible, gaining momentum from a gravitational asymmetry would seem directly damaging to the environment.

A momentum gain from an effective N3 violation however needs only to draw momentum from the Higgs field - which, as laboured ad nauseum, might be just as dodgy, if not so immediately palpably.. but at least we'd have the excuse of not being able to see the reaction matter.

But for anyone still determinedly looking for a potential gravitational asymmetry, there's something to think about - the momentum your wheel would have to keep replenishing, were it workable, can only result in an alteration of earth's momentum state.. you can't access quantum momentum from any kind of GPE asymmetry as far as i can see.

So in surmisal, some kind of gravitationally-assisted inertial asymmetry remains the most consistent silver-bullet solution, i think..

[Dwylbtzle]

when i finally built a wheel where the little balls would OBVIOUSLY roll downhill at the right place.....
--you know what i mean--like that last moving diagram--you can SEE IN YOUR MIND'S EYE exactly where the little balls should roll downhill
(in my case it was on the curved louvers--but same principle here)
and you can CLEARLY SEE that it SHOULD frippin work!

so i made the build and guess what?-
-at the exact instant everything should roll the right way.... causing the wheel to turn .....
--everything just agrees to go: "Naw--this exact spot is fine...i think i'll just sit right HERE!"
and the whole thing rolls or rocks BACK a one ten thousandth of a cunt hair
and everything finds its equilibrium--and it sits dead still

the way i would explain it is: we see a position where, if the balls roll downhill--there CLEARLY should be more weight and leverage on the OUTSIDE of one side--and less on the other side--because the weights on the other side are nearer the axis

but when it reaches that point
the little balls just decide that THAT's a TIE
and WE expect the TIE to go our way
but it doesn't
everything rocks back that tiny bit
and it remains a tie
sits dead still

[MrVibrating]

Sounds like you were trying to make an overbalancing wheel?

As explained above, that would produce momentum, if it were able to produce energy... which i don't believe it could, and Bessler seemed to have thought likewise.

In the above post i'm simply laying out which types of potential asymmetries might be useful, vs which ones seem pointless even attempting. Drawing a mass inwards - and so reducing MoI - for free - was the original aim of the animation above, and it works in that respect; the masses are drawn inwards automatically without springs or gravity (gravity is disabled in the sim).

However i now realise that the energy we would gain by a free reduction of MoI does not also supply momentum - a second stage interaction would thus be required to constantly replenish the momentum being drained off by attached loads. And this, in a statorless motor, would imply that this second-stage momentum-generating principle would also need to be a symmetry break in its own right...

So Occam's razor suggests that's an unecessary multiplication of entitites; it seems more likely that our target asymmetry must be one that generates both momentum and energy, together at the same time.

And so, in light of this apparent requirement, i've listed the 3 types of potential asymmetries above that could, in principle, satisfy this dual role: an N3 break in an otherwse fully-elastic collision, or else, raising MoI without incurring the usual associated deceleration, or else, some kind of OB wheel.

The big caveat here is that though an OB wheel would, in principle, meet the right criteria, it seems the most assuredly impossible, due to the constancy of mass and gravity - an asymmetry, in the first instance, depends upon variable forces, so is precluded outright by invariant ones.

Which means the only conclusion i'm drawing thus far is that some form of gravitationally-assisted inertial asymmetry, especially one involving raising MoI without incurring the usual associated deceleration, appears to be the most consistent and simple solution to look for.

I'm not saying i have that solution - if i did i wouldn't be faffing around with nebulous generalisations like this in the first place... rather, i'm trying to narrow the range of potential hiding places for Bessler's asymmetry, from these broader practical considerations.

So although the sim above doesn't generate energy, even if it could, that alone wouldn't fulfill our requirements. The reason i think the concept might yet have use is because i now have a better idea of what sort of asymmetry to be aiming for.. so far, it's just an interplay of inertial forces, so i need to find some way of applying gravity...

[sleepy]

Mr. V,
Love your "train of thought" detective work.Been trying hard to keep up with you.For what it's worth,that "gains force from their own swinging" is a loose interpretation of the original old German,and has many variables and options that could change what that statement means.So don't get overly hung-up on that statement as it may close doors that should stay open.My theory as per the size of the wheels, Bessler was working with a principle that did not produce massive amounts of extra power after turning itself,and the larger wheels were needed for the internal mechs to have clearance from the solid axle.In other words,if the smallest wheel let the weights clear the axle by 2 inches,then the weights could be offset by those 2 inches on the power stroke. But on the largest wheel,maybe there was 3 times the clearance,allowing the weights to be further offset.Just a thought.Don't forget to relax for a few minutes over the Holidays.

[MrVibrating]

Cheers mate - although slightly crossed wires perhaps - when i said:

an effective GPE asymmetry could, in principle, produce excess momentum, along with its energy gain, and so drive other loads directly from its own motion, as Bessler's wheels did.

..i'm just trying to clarify that if some kind of gravitational asymmetry (OB wheel) were possible, then the energy gain also comes with an effective momentum gain, and as such, the energy gain can be tapped off directly from the wheel's kinetic energy, ie. its motion.

Again, not trying to argue or plead the prospective virtues of such a bounty (quite the opposite; i remain convinced it's intrinsically impossible), but part of my limited toolkit of investigative techniques is to look for what variables would have to be tweaked in order for a gain to be mathematically possible - so without actually presuming it is possible, but merely supposing for arguments' sake what such a result would imply about its causes - and then eliminating the ones that are obviously outright impossible, to hopefully leave a kernel of slightly more promising approaches.. and as such, while i think a GPE asymmetry / OB wheel is comprehensively impossible, regardless of that fact, were one possible, the resulting KE gain could be tapped directly without exhausting the wheel's momentum. So in this single respect, it'd be consistent with Bessler's demos. In other respects though (esp. his wheels load-matching properties), it'd be inconsistent, since any load applied to a working OB wheel would accelerate it when the load was positive, and decelerate it when negative - the applied load would effectively be levered directly against the internal OB advantage.

Contrast that with the asymmetry i had until recently had much higher hopes for - freely (or just cheaply) pulling a mass inwards, reducing MoI and so getting a nice strong kick of acceleration. This asymmety, were it possible, would seem to chime with Bessler's various hints about the wheel and weights somehow 'exressing' some kind of inherent torque or acceleration, 'from within'. Likewise, the witness reports implying these load-matching properties. However while this certainly would create energy, from the classical persepctive at least, it's only raising the energy value of a conserved momentum - the amount of which never rises. So even if we could turn an initial input PE of 1 Joule into 1 kJ - gaining 999 J of bona fide free energy.. when we come to tap it off directly from the wheel's / axle's own motion - ie. harnessing the KE gain directly, as Bessler's wheel demos did - this also means tapping off 99.99% of the system momentum. So after collecting our gain, the wheel would have the 1 J it began with, but only 0.01 of its initial momentum left. Obvoiusly, this precludes cycling repetitively unless we can somehow trade some of that energy gain for more fresh momentum. But gaining more momentum in a statorless motor - with nothing external to push against - would consititute a second miracle, on top of the first...

So instead of expecting a pair of neatly dove-tailing divine provenances, it seems more pragmatic to expect that there's probably just one principle capable of fulfilling both requirements - and there's three potential candidates already listed, and potentially others i haven't realised yet...

So i wasn't specifically referencing the "gains energy from swinging" clue, but merely distinguishing prospective asymmetries that also produce momentum, and so can provide consistent output KE, from those that don't, and which thus cannot drive attached loads directly from the gained KE.

It's still an on-point contribution though - on the one hand, an OB wheel could replace the momentum lost to applied loads, but OB wheels are impossible. Conversely, the KE gained by CoM raising velocity to compensate a reduced MoI and so conserve net momentum, does what it sez on da tin, conserving momentum, not raising it. So it is insufficient to simply goad inertial torque from a passive MoI reduction, as i've previously tried to interpret the various clues about "energy from motion".

However, exploiting CoM via variable MoI remains the most consistent, if only semi-plausible possibility, IMHO. Gravity and mass are speed invariant. Inertia / momentum and KE are speed-dependent. So whatever gravity's role - however vital it may be to the process - the gain has to involve CoM accelerating a mass to compensate a reduction in its angular inertia - and the inverse of that interaction, for raising MoI - there's simply nothing else on the table - gravity and mass are constant, and energy can't just spontaneously manifest without explicit causation. There's simply nothing else to 'bind' it to or attribute it to. Energy / work is pinned to force times displacement. If I/O distances are equal then an asymmetry demands a time-variant force. A free asymmetry means the time-variant factor is passive. So it's a foregone conclusion that these are the de-facto critical, fundamental elements of his asymmetry, whatever their physical embodiments. That said, the only ones apparently available are gravity and inertial momentum, the former being constant and the latter only maleable as a function of angular inertia - can't see anything else without getting exotic. In terms of basic mechanics, that's all we have to play with - everything else, different forms of PE, leverage or whatever, is just incidental. The variability of MoI is the only wildcard in the deck. Whatever gravity's role, it must be exploiting this variable, simply because no other candidate variable exists - there is no other viable parameter that can vary the energy value of a momentum. At least not classically, in this universe.

There's one obvious 'scheme' (workable or not) that is suggested by the above conclusions - extend a mass on the descending side of the wheel, in much the same way we would if naively trying to increase an OB, but instead, doing so for quite different reasons:

- extending a mass or raising its MoI, causes CoM to brake its rate of rotation or orbital velocity

- if however raising the MoI also causes an OB, then the extended weight can be accelerated by gravity, compensating the deceleration it suffered by moving outwards

..in conclusion, if the reason for extending a mass on the descending side was not so much OB, but rather primarily to raise MoI while also aplying gravity to mitigate the usual associated deceleration, then we gain both energy and momentum

- likewise, when we pull the ascending mass back in again, we'd be generating underbalance, but also positive inertial torque from CoM accelerating the velocity to offset the drop in MoI.

If something like this is possible, then the critical 'magic moment' when net system energy and momentum both increase is when the extending (and thus normally decelerating) MoI is instead accelerated by gravity, while conversely, the reciprocal retracting (and thus accelerating) MoI is not decelerated by gravity, due to being in an UB, not OB, condition.

So that'd be a pair of alternating inbound vs outbound masses, resulting in two discrete gain strokes per cycle, gaining both KE and momentum each time, requiring gravity but not a gravitational asymmetry, and applying it to pump the gains from CoM. Would tick all the right boxes.. looks just like regular expectations of how an OB wheel would appear, except it's not the weight imbalance that is driving the gain, but rather the gravitationally-unbalanced +/- inertial torques.

Equally, invisible pink unicorns probably either eat, or else shit, fairy dust, and a basic process of logical elimination should help narrow down the possibilites... g*d i'm full of it atm.. ;P think i might be slowly edging out of the mire, tho..

[MrVibrating]

Slight shift in focus, towards momentum..



This diagram depicts the weight trajectory of a typified non-viable OB attempt:

- Rotating clockwise about the indicated center, the mass is instantaneously extended to an OB position at A to B, then duly keels to C, whereupon the mass is instantly retracted to D, then looping back around to A.


- We know exactly why this is a zero-sum deal - the OB GPE from B to C is equal to the input GPE required to relift it from C to D.


However, we can also analyse the trajectory in terms of its inertial interactions:

- laid on its side so gravity is no longer a factor, extending from A to B causes deceleration, the mass then coasts at its reduced speed around to C, whereupon it is retracted back in to D, causing an acceleration equal and opposite to the deceleration at A to B

- the energy that must be input at C to D, to overcome centrifugal force, is equal to the centrifugal output PE from A to B

So again, a zero sum deal.


However, in the latter case, although the system's balance of KE to PE is shifting, its net momentum remains constant. At no instant does it vary.

Conversely, in the former case, acting under gravity, the net system momentum is not constant - rising and falling in tandem with the ebb and flow of GPE to KE.

If Bessler's wheel wasn't an OB wheel, yet required vertical orientation, then some principle for harvesting an excess of momentum may be discernable from these basic elements..

Variable system momentums is a new angle for me - i've tried analysing things in terms of gravitational and then inertial energies, but never really gave much thought to momentum as the chief currency, usually only regarding it as a secondary consideration.

This realisation that his principle MUST continually pick up fresh momentum, somehow, from somewhere, is leading me to interesting new places.. but if we're looking for a way to scam the stuff, a net value that varies in time would seem a potentially useful first step..

As for how to apply it, i've only vague ideas for now. But broadly, i'm wondering if maybe an interaction might accomplish momentum asymmetry by compensating an offset momentum on one side of an interaction, with KE on the other side... or something like this.. dunno.. for now, all i have is this simple trajectory, embodying three seperate systems, albeit here, overlapping and interfering, pertaining to gravitational and inertial energies, but also, variable net system momentum.

Maybe this is sufficient raw ingredients for something interesting, maybe not, need to spend more time thinking through ways and means of disentangling these three fields and maybe recombining them is some more artful way..