Flippin' Flywheels

[WaltzCee]

Gravity is invariant / static.

I don't know what this means.

• edit:

It's difficult to follow your post. Looking at your conclusion:

• We're confined to a closed-loop trajectory, therefore time-variant force components
  and dependencies are our only friends.. and the de facto keys to a solution.

it seems your idea is to do work slowly at times then do work a little quicker at other times. Correct me if I'm wrong. That's what Frank was saying, but we're still waiting for the paint to dry. My take away from reading physics from Newton to Einstein to particle physics is physicists are constantly trying to get their equations to work out. I'm certain one day it will happen. My opinion is we really can't take their word for some things. We already don't take their word for the idea perpetual motion is impossible.

I see your approach as attempting to find some exploit in equations by reason of time. Is this correct?

Also, time-variant force components? Really? :)

[ME]

Gravity is the external-parameter which is ever present in all our physics equations on the scale we work at, a scale where the acceleration 'variable'/parameter can be considered a constant (unless when work on a carousel).

All those physics equations (on our scale) are (eehm..) equal; that's a mathematical way of saying: pick one, derive all the others and get Conservation of Energy for free.
Ideally all forces get recycled, but drains because things are not ideal. Hence we need an input of an external force and gravity is the only (?) thing available to get things for free. But the gravitational field is constant, can't be split, shielded, bifurcate, or oscillate on itself. It needs help to make things less symmetric.
Force="kilogram meter per second per second". It means: let's try to change mass (or inertia), distance, time or a combi.

My interpretation of MrV's previous exploration: MoI is the apparent mass which depends on static mass and distance... With the hypothesis: change the (apparent) and create a force imbalance.
But it's, so to say, "produced from equations": hence it's converted stuff, virtual, fictitious, not newly generated stuff, thus things ideally balance, and drains because it's not ideal.

I think "time-variant force component" is a good term.
You could consider an overbalanced wheel: we know the weight has to go up to get it to work.
We could look at this "solution" as some weight going faster on the ascending side, slower on the descending side. Or, the force of gravity has a shorter exposure on the ascending side and a longer exposure on the descending side.
A weight can't go up for free, but the solution of time (or averaged imbalance) is still an option to consider: time-variant force...

Yes: Shall we, the potential outlaws of physics, succeed?

[WaltzCee]

• A weight can't go up for free, but the solution of time (or averaged imbalance) is still an option to consider: time-variant force...

I'm working on a simulation. It's a 6 foot radius with 400 pounds evenly distributed. I noticed when I double velocity of the motor there's 4 times the rotational energy on the wheel. IOW, the motor needs 4 times the energy to double velocity. Moving things faster is expensive. Can gravity pay that mortgage?

My thinking was "gravity isn't a conservative force". Not in the sense it was like other non-conservative forces, ie friction, but in the sense one could find more energy coming down than needed to go back up.

Any vector analysis of that idea to date proves, yes, up = down in the best of circumstances. Often times masses can fall and dissipate energy such that they can't even return to where they came from when there's no frictional losses of any sort (in simulation). But for the sake of argument, give the point gravity isn't conservative as I outlined. OK, where did that energy come from? Conventional physics would be looking for motors and batteries.

• The only way a gravity powered wheel is possible is if there is some injection of energy, either by fraud (with a motor and batteries or changes in atmospheric pressure or some thermal gradient or . . .) or by the creation of energy.

This is where my thinking has evolved. An honest working wheel is going to create energy. I don't see it happening any other way.

[MrVibrating]

Just some brief notes to self:

Bessler's 'single crossbar' minimal mechanism could barely turn itself - despite being overunity, it couldn't accelerate. Obviously the frictional losses weren't ideal, and this description of the earliest mechanism's performance characteristics is a rather general point that could be interpreted in a number of ways...

However, it would be consistent with a system that wasn't balanced, and so wasn't rotating at constant speed - speeding up when the weight was dropping, and slowing down when it was rising... only just managing to nudge over the 12 o' clock TDC sticky spot..

An interesting method of raising a weight in a rotating system is by causing an MoI reduction independently of the GPE mass - ie. keeping it at a fixed radius, while retracting a second opposing pair of masses.. The novelty aspect is that unlike conventional means of lifting a weight via rotation (such as a motor or rotary spring at the axis), this method of applying torque is effectively reactionless - there's no angular counter-momentum being applied back to a stator or earth during the lift.

There's still the usual linear counter-force - we're pushing a mass upwards, as it pushes the earth downwards via the fulcrum or axis. But with most other means of applying torque to raise a weight, we'd also be applying counter-torque as the weight is lifted. Not here, though - the source of torque raising the weight is its own innate conservation of angular momentum.. 'lifting from within, not from without'...


ETA - summink like this:



- a 10 kg weight drops from 3 o' clock, upon reaching max speed at 6 o' clock BDC a second pair of identical 10 kg masses are drawn inwards by a spring-loaded jack...

So it's energy-neutral, no suggestion of any gains for now; the only potentially-interesting feature is this raising of GPE without applying counter-torque.

Of course simply converting sprung PE to GPE is trivial, and in one sense that's all that's happening here. Were that its sole accomplishment it'd be a little over-elaborate.

But being able to raise GPE via vertical rotation yet without applying counter-torque, could be one step towards an effective N3 break, so seems worth further thought..

It seems elegant, in that the interaction causes no counter-momentum as there is no change in system momentum applied by the MoI reduction - on the contrary, the acceleration is caused directly by conservation of angular momentum, and all we're inputting is energy, not momentum..

But because of it, we're raising GPE via rotation, but without incurring a counter-torque for the duration of the lift..

So the yin to this yang would look something like dropping the weight in a way that does cause a counter-torque..?

[MrVibrating]

• A weight can't go up for free, but the solution of time (or averaged imbalance) is still an option to consider: time-variant force...

I'm working on a simulation. It's a 6 foot radius with 400 pounds evenly distributed. I noticed when I double velocity of the motor there's 4 times the rotational energy on the wheel. IOW, the motor needs 4 times the energy to double velocity. Moving things faster is expensive. Can gravity pay that mortgage?

My thinking was "gravity isn't a conservative force". Not in the sense it was like other non-conservative forces, ie friction, but in the sense one could find more energy coming down than needed to go back up.

Any vector analysis of that idea to date proves, yes, up = down in the best of circumstances. Often times masses can fall and dissipate energy such that they can't even return to where they came from when there's no frictional losses of any sort (in simulation). But for the sake of argument, give the point gravity isn't conservative as I outlined. OK, where did that energy come from? Conventional physics would be looking for motors and batteries.

• The only way a gravity powered wheel is possible is if there is some injection of energy, either by fraud (with a motor and batteries or changes in atmospheric pressure or some thermal gradient or . . .) or by the creation of energy.

This is where my thinking has evolved. An honest working wheel is going to create energy. I don't see it happening any other way.

Exactly. 'Edge speed' of a wheel for a constant RPM squares with radius, hence so does angular inertia - and because rotational KE is 1/2 MoI times RPM squared, doubling velocity quadruples the RKE, and halving it quarters it.

The difficulty of getting gravity to pay anything is this fact that neither it, nor mass, change in time - they're static fields, and a closed-loop trajectory through a static field (or any combination of them) should have zero net energy, since energy is force times displacement, and if the latter's a closed-loop then no matter the path, if the former's static in time then we must've travelled equal distance up vs down the fields' force gradients (or inwards vs outwards, higher / lower field densities, uphill / down hill etc.).

An over or under-unity system is thermodynamically open, not closed, and can only arise when the forces in question are time-variant - so, not static unchanging forces...

This means that the key variables in an OU interaction are going to be ones that are a function of time - such as speed - and this time-dependent factor has to be different between the input and output strokes of the complete interaction cycle.

That's about as fundamentally general a description of the exploit we can be sure of - conservation of energy and momentum depend upon the fact that fields like mass and gravity don't change in time, and their forces are mediated instantaneously at lightspeed.

But this is also the reason why MoI is likely our key wildcard. Linear inertia is invariant due to mass constancy, but angular inertia is a function of mass times radius squared.. so it can change in time.

And when MoI halves, conservation of angular momentum applies and doubles velocity to compensate the drop in MoI, keeping net momentum constant... whereas RKE = 1/2MoI*RPM^2, so doubling the velocity while halving the MoI doubles the RKE. Again, this is another example of how different scaling dimensions are affected differently by these time-variant factors - while MoI and RPM are locked into a linear covariance, the relationship between RPM and RKE has the additional time derivative of frequency-squared. But that's just the distinction between momentum and energy. What we need is a system in which input vs output energies have different scaling dimensions - one being a function of time, the other merely of displacement, or else some kind of differential where rates of change of energy or an energy component is variable between I/O strokes.

Of course most if not all forms of motor or actuator can be thought of in these same terms - the difference being that normally, we pay for the field and force variations, whereas what we need is a passive variation - something that happens by itself, without cost to us.

I suspect that the "game" referred to in the writing on the toys page refers to the accompanying upturned whistling top - that of trying to get one to spin upside down, which is impossible due to its predilection for raising, rather than lowering, its MoI - as most rotating system are wont to do.

All my attempts to actually generate energy mathematically tend to come back to this same requirement, for passively self-reducing MoI.

Bessler wasn't using opposing balanced masses like i've shown above - his weights alternated inner / outer positions, so are in their high-MoI state when fully swapped around, and their low-MoI state when both are halfway between the rim and center. If passive MoI reduction is part of the key, then he must've been doing it this way for a reason, since it compromises net change in MoI within the available diameter, but also reduces transition speeds (a practical trade-off perhaps?)..

Again though, passive MoI reduction would generate free energy - it'd be certifiably, bona fide OU, no problemo.. However it cannot, of itself, also generate momentum - which is a second, additional and inescapable pre-requisite for any wheel directly driving applied loads from its own RKE - since that RKE has been raised without raising the net system momentum, and the only way to tap off RKE is to tap off the very momentum it is embodied in... so even if we doubled our RKE for free, we'd have to sacrifice half our system momentum in order to harvest that gain, which obviously prceludes closed-cycling unless we can source more momentum...

So aside from where the energy might be conjured from, we ALSO need to magic up a limitless source of fresh momentum - and there's no stator allowed, even internally-hidden ones - everything must, of necessity, go around together - which all seems neatly consistent with the trick being something that does both jobs at the same time, and which depends on MoI variation and the changes in speed and KE it causes. Some kind of effective violation of Newton's 3rd law, made possible by vertical rotation in a gravity field, somehow...

Which is bashically what this thread's about, near as i can tell...

[MrVibrating]

Gravity is the external-parameter which is ever present in all our physics equations on the scale we work at, a scale where the acceleration 'variable'/parameter can be considered a constant (unless when work on a carousel).

All those physics equations (on our scale) are (eehm..) equal; that's a mathematical way of saying: pick one, derive all the others and get Conservation of Energy for free.
Ideally all forces get recycled, but drains because things are not ideal. Hence we need an input of an external force and gravity is the only (?) thing available to get things for free. But the gravitational field is constant, can't be split, shielded, bifurcate, or oscillate on itself. It needs help to make things less symmetric.
Force="kilogram meter per second per second". It means: let's try to change mass (or inertia), distance, time or a combi.

My interpretation of MrV's previous exploration: MoI is the apparent mass which depends on static mass and distance... With the hypothesis: change the (apparent) and create a force imbalance.
But it's, so to say, "produced from equations": hence it's converted stuff, virtual, fictitious, not newly generated stuff, thus things ideally balance, and drains because it's not ideal.

I think "time-variant force component" is a good term.
You could consider an overbalanced wheel: we know the weight has to go up to get it to work.
We could look at this "solution" as some weight going faster on the ascending side, slower on the descending side. Or, the force of gravity has a shorter exposure on the ascending side and a longer exposure on the descending side.
A weight can't go up for free, but the solution of time (or averaged imbalance) is still an option to consider: time-variant force...

Yes: Shall we, the potential outlaws of physics, succeed?

Yep - the reason i keep banging on about this nebulous time-variant stuff is because it's axiomatic - for any classical interaction, we input a displacement against a force, and then it outputs an equal opposing displacement back at us. These two input and output work integrals sum to zero because the distances are equal, and so are the forces. Thus, through our sheer rapier-like powers of logical induction, we can surmise that a non-zero sum of I/O integrals - a disunity / classical symmetry break / over or under-unity interaction from a closed-loop trajectory must and can only be explained in terms of a change in time in the force.

Examples of such antics would be non-zero curl or divergence for a permanent magnet field, implying currents and thus free energy gradients. Albeit impossible, categorically-non-extant ones. But another example would be Sv - Steorn's old trickshot - which is a real and passive variation in levels of induction as a function of exposure time in an applied field.

Although we have nothing so exotic here, that's kind of the whole attraction, to me at least - far fewer variables to sift through... we know Bessler was only applying basic classical mechanics, so our time-dependencies include angular inertia and its relationships to momentum and RKE, and also perhaps things like rates of change of PE to KE as a variable function of MoI, and so on - anything that involves or influences energy or momentum distributions as a function of time is a possible angle on a potential I/O asymmetry.

Gravitational interactions alone are obviously a fools errand, but perhaps their particular conservation constraints can prove useful in combination with other (ie. inertial) mechanics.. input energy varying as a function of speed when output energy does not, or something along these lines..

Input work generating counterforce and output work not, might be another example. Basically it's so general as to be an almost useless insight - total blank slate. Static field interactions are crossed off, but the rest is up to us...

TL;DR

E = F * D, so if D is constant but E is not, then neither is F.

(D is a closed-loop trajectory, ie. with equal inbound / outbound distances, so if I/O energies are unequal, some form of force/time delta is the only possibility.)

[Grimer]

...
.....energy is force times displacement .....
...

Heat energy isn't force times displacement.

[Tarsier79]

It is if you convert it to m9vement with a perfectly efficient motor.

[Grimer]

It is if you convert it to movement with a perfectly efficient motor.

Likewise with the change in centripetal energy which one gets with a pendulum.

It has to be transformed in an energy cycle analogous to the Carnot cycle.
That is what the Milko should be capable of, given a Cloud escapement
device.

[Grimer]

• The only way a gravity powered wheel is possible is if there is some injection of energy, either by fraud (with a motor and batteries or changes in atmospheric pressure or some thermal gradient or . . .) or by the creation of energy.

This is where my thinking has evolved. An honest working wheel is going to create energy. I don't see it happening any other way.

The energy comes from Ersatz Gravity (EG).

EG Gravity changes with EG Height (EGH) (distance towards the centre of rotation)
So does Newtonian Gravity (NG) of course but only over the large changes in NG Height (NGH). Presumably the change in NGH is the energy accessed in the slingshot maneuver of space ships.

Bessler must be accessing the analogous change in EG.

Slingshot energy was initially thought to be as impossible as Bessler's wheel.

[Tarsier79]

Your statements seem to contradict to me. Heat to mechanical refers to COE.....

Show 1 piece of evidence of energy gain with a slingshot/trebuchet.

[MrVibrating]

...
.....energy is force times displacement .....
...

Heat energy isn't force times displacement.

It's mechanical motion, remember.. that tingling sensation of strong sunshine on our faces is the physical momentum of heated air molecules.

These excited molecules are cooling down by performing work on the lower-energy molecules comprising our mugs.

When we go outside on a cold day, that relationship reverses and we become chemically-fuelled outdoor heaters.. but all of that energy in all of its forms can be traced right back to the beginning of the universe in terms of its Fd work potential..

In EM form it generalises to the reduced Planck constant times frequency, however the force remains momentum, exchanged between the photons comprising the field and the accelerated / decelerated electrons radiating or absorbing them, and their respective physical momentum / 'electron mass'.

Fletch calls it the 'work-energy equivalence principle' (WEEP) which is rather snappy - i'd always just thought of it as implicit to how we think about work / energy integrals as OU researchers, since page 1 is isolating input from output integrals for side-by-side comparison, and the basic root of classic science is simply multiplying forces by displacements..

Of course the work conversion efficiency of a heat body is subject to practicalities such as Carnot and 2LoT etc., but then 'potential energy' is, by definition, context-dependent..

[MrVibrating]

• The only way a gravity powered wheel is possible is if there is some injection of energy, either by fraud (with a motor and batteries or changes in atmospheric pressure or some thermal gradient or . . .) or by the creation of energy.

This is where my thinking has evolved. An honest working wheel is going to create energy. I don't see it happening any other way.

The energy comes from Ersatz Gravity (EG).

EG Gravity changes with EG Height (EGH) (distance towards the centre of rotation)
So does Newtonian Gravity (NG) of course but only over the large changes in NG Height (NGH). Presumably the change in NGH is the energy accessed in the slingshot maneuver of space ships.

Bessler must be accessing the analogous change in EG.

Slingshot energy was initially thought to be as impossible as Bessler's wheel.

LOL what's wrong with "angular inertia is mass times radius squared"? The root of CF / CP force is simply inertia, and the realisation that gravity is functionally equivalent to a constant acceleration leads to profound insights on the fundamental nature of time, space and energy.

EGH - using three letters for a two-digit variable, and which doesn't even included mass - doesn't seem to offer much immediate advantage over mr^2..

FWIW slingshot manoeuvers exploit the orbital angular momentum of bodies (rather than their axial / polar AM) - so a successful slingshot maneouver around Earth robs us of some of our precious momentum, raising the length of our years, while causing the planet to settle into a slightly narrower orbit closer to the Sun.

Fortunately spacecraft tend to be of comparitively much lower mass, so although the trade in momentum is equal and opposite.. who cares about bringing armageddon forwards by week or so if that's still 3 billion years away and we can gain free KE today..?

[MrVibrating]

"the only potentially-interesting feature is this raising of GPE without applying counter-torque"

...on second thoughts i think this is probably myopic - an MoI-induced torque doesn't apply or induce counter-torque upon its axis or require a stator to push or pull against, however levering an unbalanced weight up and around in an arc does, no matter how it is performed.

Still, the ability to perform reactionless angular accelerations or lifts of balanced masses might yet prove a useful trick. Bottom line remains working out how to cause this effective N3 break that must lie at the heart of the exploit.. using gravity, variable MoI, and springs & pulleys etc.

We know he had paired weights alternating inner and outer positions. This causes variable balance and also variable MoI. Various clues suggest he may have been using seperate paired masses for MoI and gravity, although they perhaps took turns - unless the MoI varying factor is axial, not radial; that is, accelerating or decelerating mass in the direction of rotation - or simply applying any additional source of inertial load - could be in some senses equivalent to a conventional radial variation in MoI - which at root is simply a function of how much mass is accelerated through how much space for a given angle of rotation.

This latter form of MoI variation is potentially interesting due to its directionality - for instance the amount of space that an axially-rotating and orbiting mass is accelerating through is epicyclic, whether prograde (same direction for orbital and axial rotations) or retrograde (opposite directions).

I suspect that the asymmetric 'Y' shape atop (B) on the Toys Page represents a torque or energy asymmetry - the upper hammer toy represents a cyclical GPE interaction, while the lower one a cyclical MoI variation - which might be axial / angular, as well as or besides being purely radial - since radially-induced MoI variations, even in combination with gravitational interactions, seem to remain symmetry-bound.

It might be noteworthy that the lower toy also seems slightly taller, perhaps implying that the MoI variation requires more space than the gravitational interaction. But again, note also that the hammers themselves are depicted as tapering, implying directionality, and seem to correlate most closely with the principal embodied by the hammer-weights depicted in MT 133 - 134, dealing with angular as well as radial accelerations.


But whatever the particulars and fine details, all he had was gravity, inertia and rotation. The machine drove attached loads directly from its axle, offloading its own momentum along with that donated KE, and moreover according to Bessler, it positively liked this, increasing its efficacy and allowing it to create even more momentum and energy.. and so somehow it must be possible to pull off this feat using just these elements..

[MrVibrating]

OK here's summink different:



- the red wheel is the main axis of rotation

- the green wheel is the same size, but attached to the red wheel at half its radius; ie. radius of both is 3 m, and the green wheel is pivotted to the red one at 1.5 m radius

- the two blue weights are attached to the green wheel, and slide radially together at once, connected by a rigid rod


And now the interesting bit...

- on the left side the blue weights are causing the green wheel to be in its minimal MoI state, while at the same time, placing the red wheel into its maximal MoI state

- on the right side the sliding weights have moved radially by 1/4 the radius, however this has swapped the min/max MoI states between the two rotors! Now the red disc is at min-MoI, and the green one at max MoI..

Not sure how useful that is just yet, but epicyclic MoI variations seem to offer somewhat more versatility than single-axis MoI..