Flippin' Flywheels

[ME]

Doubt anyone's following too closely here, god knows i can barely keep up meself.

What comes to mind are those situations where you got slightly distracted and lost that one tiny (and of course 'unique') component, when lucky enough you just heard it bounce on the floor or against something... tick, tick... (gone).
For those situations where I really want to have this (of course non-magnetic) thing back, I apply my little trick for which I'm still unsure if it leans more towards statistics or towards superstition: I find myself a similar thing in weight, size but less valuable and drop it at about the same place where I lost my now precious object. Then hope I pay more attention and find those two again... Sometimes I have to decide if I'm willing to 'apply' a second "ping"...

eehm, anywho..
I was trying to let my questions pile-up until I could formulate it better or you would cover it yourself...
Let me just spurt-out some arbitrary "pings":

And so we see that momentum isn't conserved precisely because it is.
- It's difficult to understand what actually happens in your 'Robernoster'. But isn't it possible that green-bar enters some point in the simulation where momentum just cancels because it pushes both discs at some changing angle, so there might be a situation where m*v*sin(angle1)+m*v*sin(angle2) = 0; or some string/pulley is non-elastically stretched to its maximum, and not giving it back (as animated on your first page in this topic) ??

Accelerating without accelerating, coupled with Conservation of Way Too Much Momentum..
- But your Torque is an acceleration: which defines the change in Angular Momentum, and probably (not checked) balances spring potential (with radius) with Rotational kinetic energy... right?

Gonna go try the 'D' tracks OB concept now..
- I thought you started this thread to get away from these static OB concepts :-)

Agor:
That's what I tried to convey in the 'computers?. You would preferably need the amount of experiments equal to the amount of dimensions/variables/unknowns to get a new bearing: Hence Fletcher's advice of reducing complexity. Finding a principle doesn't work by change (probably:-), finding a (better) optimum does.

[MrVibrating]

Hi MrVibrating,

You are doing a great work and do have great ideas, keep it up!
You might be interested about one of my old designs, I called "fan wheel test" at the time:
http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewt ... c&start=15

Essentially, you have created a centrifugal brake. The opposite of that would be presumably a motor.
Attached is in effect a similar version I designed years ago, perhaps it can help at something. Cheers! :)

Edit: Or CoAM brake if you prefer. Your analysis is correct, the mass flying out on high speed decelerates the system much more than the other mass can accelerate while being retracted on low speed. Therefore the slowing/braking effect...

Thanks mate, and likewise great work you're doing there.

The bottom line i think here is that in reverse, pulling mass inwards 'creates' more momentum, while extending it back out doesn't 'destroy' any.

So we can pump the system with fresh new virgin momentum-from-nowhere, via an effective one-way valve, with each closed-loop cycle of two opposing mass pairs. More ambient momentum can always enter through this quantum-classical boundary, but it can't get back - kind of like a diode for vacuum potential.

The term that seems most apt is "directional vacuum coupler" - altho that's already a thing in RF-splitters.. but essentially, the direction of the asymmetry depends only on whether we cancel CF for increasing, or decreasing MoI.

If we cancel CF when MoI is rising, we lose momentum. Cancel it when MoI is falling, and we gain momentum. The Higgs field - the innumerable fleeting energy exchanges that permeate all space interacting with everything possessing 'mass' - is going to accelerate a 'closed' rotating system for us.

[MrVibrating]

Doubt anyone's following too closely here, god knows i can barely keep up meself.

What comes to mind are those situations where you got slightly distracted and lost that one tiny (and of course 'unique') component, when lucky enough you just heard it bounce on the floor or against something... tick, tick... (gone).
For those situations where I really want to have this (of course non-magnetic) thing back, I apply my little trick for which I'm still unsure if it leans more towards statistics or towards superstition: I find myself a similar thing in weight, size but less valuable and drop it at about the same place where I lost my now precious object. Then hope I pay more attention and find those two again... Sometimes I have to decide if I'm willing to 'apply' a second "ping"...

..in my case it'd be something falling into a cylinder head, but hopefully anything i drop in there finds its way to filling in for something else that's fallen out. At least it seems to have, so far. Sounds like solid advice to me.

eehm, anywho..
I was trying to let my questions pile-up until I could formulate it better or you would cover it yourself...
Let me just spurt-out some arbitrary "pings":

And so we see that momentum isn't conserved precisely because it is.
- It's difficult to understand what actually happens in your 'Robernoster'. But isn't it possible that green-bar enters some point in the simulation where momentum just cancels because it pushes both discs at some changing angle, so there might be a situation where m*v*sin(angle1)+m*v*sin(angle2) = 0; or some string/pulley is non-elastically stretched to its maximum, and not giving it back (as animated on your first page in this topic) ??

Great questions. Pulleys are arranged in push-pull config crossing multiple articulated joints - carefully aligned to avoid yanking the chords, with high accuracy settings.. but still a stressed state.

On your suggestion, i just ran a few more tests:

- remove pin (3) - the axis between the system and background - to leave the system free-floating in zero-G.

- add a motor applying a constant 2 N-m for 4 secs - this torque applied between the two rotors from standing start, so contra-rotating them. After 4 secs the motor disappears, and the self-deceleration occurs as before.

- now anchor each rotor once in turn and repeat that test, with identical results - one rotor's held stationary, the other bearing all the motion, and the self deceleration again occurs, whichever rotor is used as a stator.

- final test; give unequal initial velocity to each rotor, or else both velocities of the same, rather than just opposite, sign... and this condition breaks the effect - specifically, the relative motion between the rotors is eliminated as before, but not the net system momentum.

In summary, the effect itself is contingent entirely upon the masses being forced to follow this trajectory, which eliminates a velocity difference between the two rotors, regardless of whether they're both floating or either one's anchored.

If the net system itself has any momentum however after its own relative motion has ceased, then it's just a spinning lump of inert machinery.

Accelerating without accelerating, coupled with Conservation of Way Too Much Momentum..
- But your Torque is an acceleration: which defines the change in Angular Momentum, and probably (not checked) balances spring potential (with radius) with Rotational kinetic energy... right?

The concept here is raising momentum without velocity, as demonstrated.

So yes, you could regard "raising momentum" as a form of "acceleration", independently of its usual sense of changing velocity. The inertial torque is an acceleration, but that acceleration's resisted by the widening MoI of the masses in the expanding flywheel, so velocity can't increase even though momentum's rising at a constant rate. The 'accelerating without accelerating' quip is nothing more, the point is simply that we can harvest that momentum without raising the robernoster velocity and thus CF in the poles, by 'accelerating' a flywheel that gets fatter instead of faster. Then we can use that flywheel's rising PE to keep retracting the masses against the pole's constant peak CF.

Gonna go try the 'D' tracks OB concept now..
- I thought you started this thread to get away from these static OB concepts :-)

True, but JC's convinced a gravitational asymmetry is the answer so i'm still half-hoping i might be shocked and appalled into a 180° on it at some point..

The thing here though is that in linear travel, load distributions are irrelevant, while in angular travel they affect balance. So perhaps in a closed-loop path this would allow for some shenanigans - basically, turning different forms of balance on and off. The net weight of each pole is independent of the positions of the sliding weights on them, so exchanging them vertically without changing their angles is a zero-sum deal.. type stuff. Maybe.

[Fletcher]

Mr V .. perhaps the following thoughts can shed some light on where the energy is disappearing to in your robonoster ?!

I'll use the example of an ordinary circular path and radially translating masses (rather than the oval path of the robonoster).

In the circular path option where there are say 4 equally spaced sliding masses then as you have said there is a problem i.e. CF's cannot be turned off and continuously acts on all the masses with equal force - the only variable force being the combination of CF (acting in a direction linear and tangential to the circumference) and gravity always acting downwards.

So at the top of a vertical wheel format the CF acts on a mass (able to slide) to increase radius and 'g' acts downwards to reduce NET force acting on that mass. Whilst at the 6 o'cl position there is reinforcement of CF's + 'g' to give a greater NET force acting on that mass.

Previously I have built and shown sims of these radial translations etc. When a mass is pulled (work done on it) to decrease radius it takes input of energy - this is exactly equal to the energy lost from the mass translating outwards to a greater radius (linear velocity lost as collision energy) - zero sum game if no energy is wasted - CoAM and CoE.

But it is the energy loss of a mass translating outwards that I am thinking about in relation to your oval path robonoster.

If a mass moves outwards on the 'turn' under Cf's then that mass will have a linear velocity. If it pulls another mass inwards (on the linear stretch of the oval path where there is no CF's acting on that mass) then the energies would/should be matched i.e. the mass moving inwards will have to be accelerated and then decelerated because it is traveling a hypotenuse path. Otherwise both translating masses will come up against a physical stop of some sort. Those 'collisions' will waste energy from the system due to elasticity and at the molecular level from deformation. Traditionally just called wastage to heat and sound etc.

Anyways it looks like we want the outward moving mass to pull in the linear traveling mass and accelerate it whilst it decelerates due to inertia. But we want to harvest the KE of movement to add momentum to the system rather than have it wasted in unavoidable collisions.

Just some thoughts while I drink a coffee. Probably missed something in there.

[MrVibrating]

Cheers Fletch...

I'm really not sure i've pressed home the core concept here, so forgive me if most of the following is redundant:

- Consider a fixed-vertical paternoster, with 4 equally-spaced radially-oriented poles with sliding masses per recent schemes. No gravity or friction.

- Traveling around the ends induces CF, and changes in radius under CF induce reactionless torque, positive for inbound, negative for outbound.

- No CF is present on the linear sections tho.. 'radial' translations here do not induce torques.

- this should be a 'ba-ding!' moment - we can change radius for free in these CF dead-zones!

- the next point after this one is really, really critical to grasp, so this one's just a heads-up - prepare to be wowed..

- these reactionless inertial torques are caused by CoAM, and doing a sterling job - the momentum of the radially-translating masses remains constant!

What else could it do? Of course it's constant. That's why they call it CoAM. The mass moved out, so its MoI went up, so its speed went down... by the perfect amount. No more, no less. The angular momentum of the radially translating masses is perfectly, incontrovertibly conserved, constant, invariant, all present and correct. Fantastic.

However, that same deceleration was also applied to the other half of the paternoster's moving mass - the two masses traveling up and down the sides... and their momentum is simply p = mV - their rest mass times that linear velocity.

A linear velocity that has just been decelerated...

The system momentum has just been decreased, by CoAM doing exactly what it's supposed to!

And then that slowed linear-moving mass gets flung outwards, getting back at his buddy 'round the corner who just got him, and conserving all of his remaining momentum.. until he comes back round onto the next straight, and gets decelerated again...

OMG?

The system is OPEN!!!

In principle we can rectify the positive torques just as surely as we can the negative ones!

It's done mate. We're finished.

The rest is just engineering..

[MrVibrating]

Hopefully the following variation can help clarify what's going on:





- single rotor, the track is a fixed stator

- extremely weak retraction springs have been added. These pull the masses back inwards, applying a force of just 50 millinewton-meter - and so they're only capable of retracting the 80 gram steel weights if CF is nearo-zero..

- the system has been set in motion by a -40 RPM constant-velocity motor. After one cycle this has been removed, leaving the system coasting under whatever stored momentum and energy it has, and marking the starting position of this sim.

- the masses begin locked to their poles, 2 out, 2 in, for the first 5 seconds. We see that over this time, system P and KE remain conserved.

- at 5 seconds, the locks disappear, allowing the springs to begin retracting their masses.

- you should clearly see now that the loss mechanism is the deceleration applied to the linearly-moving masses - at this stage, their momentum is their rest mass times their velocity, and that velocity is being braked by the negative inertial torque induced by the extending masses, ergo, their momentum is decreasing, and thus so is that of the net system... not simply despite CoAM conserving all the momentum of the extending masses, but because of it. CoM was broken, by CoAM.


The result is beyond contention..

CoAM 1 - 0 CoM


Then again, since the linear momentum was only ever a temporary translation of the main system's angular momentum, CoAM has destroyed its own ward.

It's a logic trap for CoAM.

The net result is reactionless torque from an unreciprocated inertial torque, caused by a full-cycle radial translation, only half of which is subject to CF and thus torque induction.

This is a 100% asymmetry, and creating momentum is as simple as pulling mass inwards under peak CF, while re-extending it under zero-CF. Every cycle raises the system momentum.

We're basically OU, people! For real this time.. the remaining challenges are almost trivial; we have our asymmetry, our prime mover!

It's asymmetric inertial interactions. Nothing to do with gravity. The exploit is that we can keep adding ever-more momentum to an otherwise closed-system, and, using the CF governor principle demonstrated yesterday we can keep the energy cost of that momentum constant.

And this is where our excess energy comes from; the unit energy cost of momentum usually rises with the square of velocity, getting more expensive the faster we get. But if the momentum can rise without raising the system velocity, as via a CF-governor, then the energy cost of successive increases in momentum becomes constant. But while our KE isn't rising, our PE in the form of the tension stored in the CF-governor's springs is OU.

In a nutshell we can have more momentum than we'd normally be able to pay for, and the 'normal' energy value of that excess momentum is the form of our excess energy - ie. PE stored as excess momentum.

I appreciate much of this may seem terribly unintuitive, but then that's why it's remained hidden so long..

Unfortunately, it seems Bessler never really appreciated its nature or potential either, or else why persist with the whole 'gravity wheel' fascia? The forces we're dealing with, being purely mechanical, are fairly arbitrary - it's fully scalable to ludicrous power densities, works anywhere and renders pretty much everything else redundant, including nuclear.

The question is simply how much mass can you pull in, how far, and at what RPM? The mechanism is virtually vibration-free, can be operated quietly, is robust enough for mobile applications - automotive, aerospace & marine...

The most burning question now, is - can we turn a pair of opposing 'angons' into a 'linon'..? Ie. if reactionless torques of equal opposite sign are applied to a common base mass, is there an uncancelled linear resultant?



ETA: Forgot to mention, for clarity - in this sim the pulleys are also removed, and there are no interconnections between the masses; they're free to move in and out independently of one another. Gravity and friction remain disabled. The disappearing locks are massless. The only causal difference between an open and closed system is the mass trajectory, and the asymmetric inertial torque it induces..

[MrVibrating]

Just realised the perfect way to coordinate the radial translations is via another, outer track - the ideal shape is simply a larger parabolic elliptoid track, basically the same shape as the inner track, but with a vertical offset between the two hemispheres, and so a diagonal section of track forcing the zero-CF MoI change along the straights. Basically imagine two 'D's back-to-back, with a slight vertical offset.. that's our perfect trajectory for the masses, so another rail can obviate all the hassle of springs and timing mechanisms etc.



As for the potential linear N3 break - i haven't simmed this yet so take the following with all the salt... but i can't see why it shouldn't work.

Picture this: a clockwise positive inertial torque, side-by-side with an anti-clockwise positive torque (ie. both retracting masses, but each in opposite directions of rotation) nailed to the same board. So it basically applies a swimming-like stroke; the angular components cancel, leaving a net linear acceleration..!?!?

..and then, travelling thru a zero-CF zone in an orthogonal plane, they change 'radius' (scare quotes cos at this stage they're still only traveling in a straight line), moving back out without incurring any inertial torques, rinse and repeat..?

This is another one for which the easiest test would be passive braking under its own stored momentum... WE HAVE TO TRY THIS!!!

[Fletcher]

Mr V .. I have to admit that I been sitting at my usual outside table spot with coffee and cig trying to visualize all this. I quickly get into a state of brain fade and the synapses refuse to fire and process anymore. I think Frank would call it cognitive dissonance. A conflict against beliefs I guess or just plain old inability to hold all information in one place at one time.

Anyways, as I always do when faced with something complex I try to break it down into smaller bite sized bits that I can digest and square away piece by piece before adding the next layer of complexity etc. Then see if I can hold this new visualization together.

So I've been doing that. Running two concurrent visualizations (like simulations in my head). No gravity, no frictions, set initial rpm conditions etc.

The first is the well known circular track with only ONE radial slide for a single mass to change radius. 1 for simplicity of imagining what is happening. And I first deal with the mass moving to a greater radius due CF's and then later being pushed/pulled back in again. Since angular velocity drives this thing then whether the mass is in or out it will have a circle speed that is constant - add in the influence of inertia of the background wheel etc and we end up with conservation of angular momentum and CoE. N.B. that is if we were to say capture all outwards translational velocity in a perfect spring to return this energy in the push inwards phase for example. Since it is a symmetric action then it doesn't matter whether I am thinking about the mass moving outwards under Cf's (linear translation) or whether it is being pushed or pulled inwards. The sums/results are the same I think.

Then I run a parallel visualization of the oval track with again 1 slider mass. And I try to visualize what happens. Again angular velocity is constant if we are looking at the outgoing route. But we don't need much energy input to move it back in again on the linear sector of the track. In reverse situation we push the mass inwards on the turn and angular velocity is still constant I'm guessing. But we let it move out again in the straight with a little energy input.

So here's the rub .. I am not making the connections that you are at this point. If angular velocity is constant how do we get an increase in momentum and system energy ? In simplistic terms we are changing tracks with input of energy. Should this result in increased momentum (and angular velocity) then would it not require more energy to shift inwards again next cycle etc just like the ordinary circular track example ?

Yep, the eyes start to flicker and I take on the thousand yard stare. Any help appreciated.

[MrVibrating]

Argh if anyone can get this you can mate..

The exploit is the different dimensions of MoI vs rest mass. Angular vs linear momentum. CoAM vs CoM.

Forget about CF moving masses for now - what interests us is what happens when WE move masses radially under CF - this produces torque, via the so-called ice-skater effect.

If we move an orbiting mass inwards, a positve torque is induced in it, speeding it up.

If we move an orbiting mass outwards, a negative torque is induced, slowing it down.

These torques are reactionless - they neither require nor produce counter-forces.

Now here's the crunch, focus on this bit - why do these torques arise? To speed the orbit up, or slow it down, to match its MoI at the new radius, conserving angular momentum.

Again, visualise the pirouetting figure skater; she goes into a spin with both arms and one leg outstretched, and then she pulls her leg in parallel to the other, and brings her hands together up over her head, spins up like a turbine, and everyone oohs and ahhs..

The CF itself is almost incidental - it's this inertial torque it causes we're interested in! It's reactionless torque!


CoAM works by speeding up a reduced MoI, and slowing down an increased one. This is how it conserves AM - because AM is MoI times RPM (angular inertia times angular velocity).

So if MoI changes, angular velocity has to change to compensate and keep net angular momentum constant. Therefore there is positive or negative torque, to change the speed to match the changed MoI and conserve AM.

Because MoI is variable, and also a component of AM, changes in MoI cause torques, adjusting AM's other component, angular speed, to keep the net AM constant.


So follow it through in your mind's eye - an orbiting mass is moved inwards, reducing its angular inertia, and so its angular velocity increases to maintain net momentum.


However, to conserve linear momentum, the opposite happens - linear momentum is a function of rest mass times velocity. Rest mass cannot be varied - it's fixed, by how much baryonic matter we have. And because mass can't change, the velocity of linear momentum can't change - ie. we conserve linear momentum by not changing speed.

If rest mass doesn't change, and linear velocity doesn't change, then linear momentum is constant and conserved.

But if rest mass is constant, and velocity DOES change, then linear momentum has changed!


So, once again, CoAM works by changing speed to match MoI, whereas CoM works by not changing either mass or speed.

-----


And we have a rotating system that is also comprised of a linear section.

It's all connected, one chain or belt or whatever, so all traveling at the same speed.

Therefore, if the rotating section changes speed, so does the linear section.

Therefore, if we change MoI by moving a mass in or out, then we induce a torque that is ALSO being applied to the linearly moving mass, changing its, and thus the net system's, momentum!

Is this clicking yet? In the very process of acting to conserve net AM, CoAM is causing a CoM violation, changing the speed of a linearly moving mass, and thus its momentum!

When the spinning ballerina throws her limbs outwards, she decelerates - maintaining angular momentum, by shedding velocity.

Suppose we had a simple chain and sprocket set - ie. like on a pushbike. But the sprockets also have radially-sliding masses. So we can vary their MoI, and thus cause CoAM to speed them up and slow them down as a function of that changing mass radius. And within each sprocket, AM is perfectly conserved. By changing speed. The sprockets change speed to match their changing MoI, and keep AM constant.

But the chain itself is not all rotating - only the bits going around the sprockets are. In-between the sprockets, the chain forms a straight line.

But if the sprockets are changing speed, then the chain must also be changing speed. And whereas the sprockets are changing speed precisely because their momentum is not changing, if the chain's speed is also changing, as it must, and yet its momentum, on those linear sections, is simply its rest mass times its velocity, then its momentum IS changing!


Now here's a stunning realisation for ya - the cost of pulling a mass inwards on a sprocket is the same, regardless of whether the chain is perfectly circular, or has linear sections. In the latter case though, it increases the system momentum, by speeding up a linearly-moving body with constant, unchanging, mass. IOW, if it costs a Joule to pull in a given amount of mass over a given radius and RPM, then it's one Joule regardless of whether or not the chain had any straight sections. But if it did, then we created some momentum, in a closed system, at no extra cost. It's not like having linear sections of travel causes a higher CF in the rotating parts.

So this initial stage of the exploit is simply using the accelerations applied by CoAM to speed up or slow down linearly-moving mass, instead of just rotating stuff, and so using CoAM to violate CoM, raising or lowering net system momentum.

The second stage is avoiding undoing what we did when resetting the MoI - so we don't want to cause an equal opposite deceleration when we move the mass back out again, ready to be pulled in a second time..

Otherwise whatever we gained on the way in, we lose again on the way out.

But that's not what we want to do. What we want to do is KEEP all of that gained momentum, and add even more with successive strokes.

And so this is why we make the return journey, back out to higher radius, closer to the rim, while we're traveling along one of the straights - because when traveling in a straight line, there is no CF!

And if we change radius when there's no CF, then there's no associated inertial torque!

We can move back out, without incurring the usual deceleration we'd suffer if we moved the mass back out while it was rotating around one of the sprockets!

And if we don;t decelerate, then we don't give up any of the momentum we gained when we pulled it in!

So again, the cycle (of the radially-translating masses (ie. the ones moving in and out, while going around and around)), is: move IN while rotating, and thus experiencing CF, and thus inducing torque, which is thus likewise applied to the linearly-moving masses, raising their and thus the net system's momentum.. and then move the masses back OUT again while they're NOT rotating, and so NOT subject to CF and not inducing the torque that would, otherwise, counteract our ill-gotten momentum gains.


So in a nutshell, we can move in and out for free, ie. changing radius and thus the MoI we're going to be subject to, but aren't yet, and we can also trick CoAM into blindly trashing CoM by coupling an angular motion to a linear one - that is, paternosters and Robervals etc. are just a neat encapsulation of the requisite mechanism, but so is a bicycle transmission, a belt-drive, or ANY coupled angular-linear mechanism - linear momentum is MV (a constant times a variable), while angular momentum is MoI*RPM - a product of two variables.

And so MoI is our wildcard. Covariant to RPM thanks to CoAM, we can use such manipulations to apply accelerations to linearly-moving masses in an otherwise closed system, breaking CoM, and by changing radius with and without CF and thus +/- inertial torques, we can rectify either sign at will, exclusively and fully.

We're talking 100% fully-asymmetric interactions. From full CF, of arbitrary peak magnitude, to zero CF, both conditions co-existing on the same track at the same time at constant speed, energy and momentum.


This was Bessler's insight - it must've happened to him the same way it did for me - just consider the paternoster, rotating at constant speed - the roundy bits have CF, but the flatter parts don't. So a mass riding around the track is subject to full CF, and then no CF, and then full CF again, and then no CF again... CF on, CF off. CF on, Cf off again. On and off, and on, and off, the CF goes.

So there's CF, and then there isn't CF, but there there is again! Is, isn't, is, isn't.. the CF is turning on and off. Repeatedly. No work's being done to make it happen. Pulsing CF on and off isn't slowing us down any. And so round and round we go, experiencing full CF, and then no CF, and then full CF, but then no CF...

And we also have a mass that we wanna move in and out.

So we've got this mass, it can move radially, in and out, and that's what we want to do with it.

And we've also got CF turning on and off spontaneously of its own accord. And we've got this mass we wanna move in and out.

And the final key detail - moving the mass in and out when there's CF also causes angular accelerations and decelerations.

But when there's no CF, moving the mass in and out does not cause these decelerations and accelerations.


So, in a closed-loop trajectory from axle to rim and back, we can slow some linearly-moving mass down, without speeding it back up, thus destroying system momentum, or we can speed it up, without slowing it back down, and so creating momentum, or we could just backtrack symmetrically and undo on the way out whatever we did on the way in.

The concept is NOT, i repeat NOT trying to harness CF PE to perform work. So for instance, fling a weight out on a pole and make that action spin up a flywheel - that's NOT the scheme here.

Rather, the only workload we're plying CF for is these inertial torques, and lack thereof on the straight sections.

So all in all, in a single-sentence summary, MoI variations invoke CoAM to change speed to maintain net AM, but when connected to a linearly-moving system too, its velocity is being changed, which is a momentum change - so by conserving AM, CoAM has inadvertently broken CoM, changing the net momentum of a closed system, and furthermore being able to move in and out while sidestepping these torque inductions means we can have a closed-loop cycle that only generates torque of one or other sign, and so adding or subtracting net momentum.

Did the last animation really not help? I thought it was the smoking gun.. :| It clearly shows that negative torques applied by the masses extending under CF likewise decelerate the linearly-moving masses, eating net system momentum. Ie. it self-evidently demonstrates CoAM violating CoM, rectifying only negative torques from closed-loop radial trajectories..

[ME]

Did the last animation really not help? I thought it was the smoking gun.. :|

Sorry, I don't get it either...

Creating momentum is as simple as pulling mass inwards under peak CF, while re-extending it under zero-CF.

I guess you suggested (at least twice) that this would be an effortless action.
If that's possible you don' t need a "Robernoster", only a wheel or an ice skater: Pulling a mass inwards is indeed the winning action (when done without effort). As you've mentioned: you have to work against CF (peaked or not).
In you latest animation (t>5) you can clearly see the drop in all the values when turning the corner and masses extend, I guess you still have to fight against that?
eeh, right?

WE HAVE TO TRY THIS!!!

Please do !

[Fletcher]

Did the last animation really not help? I thought it was the smoking gun.. :| It clearly shows that negative torques applied by the masses extending under CF likewise decelerate the linearly-moving masses, eating net system momentum. Ie. it self-evidently demonstrates CoAM violating CoM, rectifying only negative torques from closed-loop radial trajectories.

It did, but I needed to hear it again - call me hard of hearing, or in denial ;7)

So all in all, in a single-sentence summary, ... MoI variations invoke CoAM to change speed to maintain net AM, but when connected to a linearly-moving system too, its velocity is being changed, which is a momentum change - so by conserving AM, CoAM has inadvertently broken CoM, changing the net momentum of a closed system, and furthermore being able to move in and out while sidestepping these torque inductions means we can have a closed-loop cycle that only generates torque of one or other sign, and so adding or subtracting net momentum.

You know .. each part I can visualize as discrete steps. Thanks for taking the time and having the patience to say it all again. I would like to see a simple sim with say 1 pole and sliding mass etc doing a circuit of the oval race track, just to compare to my mental model, if you have the inclination ?

I underlined one part of particular resonance for me, which is "torque of one or other sign"- only because of blatant self interest, and my mentioning it takes nothing away from you. For a long time I believed Bessler's wheels must have worked on accumulated momentum brought about by more positive torque than negative torque. I couldn't figure out for the life of me how he might have done it. Let's hope you have solved the physics of the conundrum.

Just some random out-there thoughts, though you don't need my encouragement for sure.

MT48 - a Bessler poternoster design - "The principle is good, but this figure will bring about no mobility by itself until completely different, additional structures have been provided (bless this marriage)." Of all Bessler's MT hints/comments this one associated with MT48 baffled me greatly because it was so out-there i.e. it's a ball transference design that uses a geared elevator - what gives ? - WHAT additional structures could bless this marriage and bring about mobility ? The simple elevator lift design could never work on its own because the elevator cannot keep up the supply of balls and needed to be geared up to do so. But then the OB wheel would not provide the necessary energy to achieve the required elevator speed to keep up supply.

Unless momentum could be accumulated somehow and put to work.

As a last random thought .. I sure hope you are right. I often wondered what the trigger would be for the person who had the insight to the problem. Heisenberg (QM) never solved the problem of how to reach a run-away cascade effect (the propagation of a fast neutron chain reaction) in creating the atomic bomb. He didn't have the 'uh huh' moment. But Oppenheimer did. He had been a theoretical physicist previously studying black holes and he realized that BH's collapsed under gravitational force, then they exploded. And so he saw that a possible solution was to cause a massive conventional implosion as a catalyst to propagate the run-away chain reaction) - he was proved right. Why do I mention this ? - because whilst it may be a lame analogy it seems to me you want to implode the your device to cause a positive momentum chain reaction.

Now I'm going to see what questions or arguments others have, and of course, wish you the very best of British ! It's been very interesting so far.

[MrVibrating]

Did the last animation really not help? I thought it was the smoking gun.. :|

Sorry, I don't get it either...

Creating momentum is as simple as pulling mass inwards under peak CF, while re-extending it under zero-CF.

I guess you suggested (at least twice) that this would be an effortless action.
If that's possible you don' t need a "Robernoster", only a wheel or an ice skater: Pulling a mass inwards is indeed the winning action (when done without effort). As you've mentioned: you have to work against CF (peaked or not).
In you latest animation (t>5) you can clearly see the drop in all the values when turning the corner and masses extend, I guess you still have to fight against that?
eeh, right?

WE HAVE TO TRY THIS!!!

Please do !

To pull the mass inwards against CF, yes of course, that's input work, and the energy you spend is equal to the gain in KE.

Normally, with pure rotation, letting the mass fling back out under CF would then take away all the KE you'd just input.

Unless we let the mass back out while it isn't rotating - in which case we can get back out to the rim, without causing the usual deceleration. And when we do this, we have gained momentum.

When the masses extend in the lossy interactions here, inertia causes a deceleration.

This deceleration doesn't change the momentum of the extended weight itself - on the contrary, the weight's RPM is decelerated precisely because its angular momentum was conserved - MoI rises with radius, so RPM must decrease to conserve net AM.

Likewise, when we pull a mass inwards and its orbital velocity rises, it does so because it's conserving angular momentum - MoI goes down with radius, so RPM must increase to conserve net AM.


So CoAM does not change the total angular momentum of the radially-translating mass itself.

It conserves it, by either accelerating it, or decelerating it, to compensate the change in MoI with radius.

Accelerating anything else that is attached to it!

IOW, these radial translations, which apply torques only because they're supposed to conserve momentum, are ALSO being applied to all the other, non-radially translating mass - whether it's rotating or traveling in a straight line or whatever.

For instance, stick a radially-sliding mass on a flywheel, spin it up and pull the mass inwards, causing an acceleration - the AM of the radially-moved mass remains constant, but the AM of the flywheel itself does not!!!


In exactly the same way, consider the paternoster, as a chain around two sprockets - we can move mass in and out radially on the sprockets.

We could even attach a giant flywheel to the main axle, and move masses in and out radially, to much higher radii than that of the sprockets turning the chain.

We could even gear up that flywheel, so that one revolution of the axle causes 10 revs of the giant flywheel.

Whatever, when we move the mass in, its momentum remains conserved, but in so doing, the momentum of the flywheel, and sprockets, and chain, all increase.

The momentum of the whole system increases, because its velocity has increased, and the flywheel's MoI is constant, and the sprocket's MoI is constant, and MoI isn't even a thing as far as the linearly-moving parts on the chain are concerned, and its rest mass certainly isn't variable... therefore where speed increases, so does momentum UNLESS the inertia in question decreases, which it can't in the linear scenario, being invariant rest mass.

So, in the sim above, when the locks are opened at 5 secs, the masses start to slide out under CF, which causes an angular deceleration to conserve their (and only their) momentum - however all the other mass that isn't changing radius is also being decelerated - and so draining momentum away.

When the masses come back onto the next straight, they're no longer subject to CF, and so moving them back inwards (via springs, pulleys or whatever) doesn't cause an angular acceleration, which would otherwise restore the system momentum. Instead, we move back in under zero CF, causing no inertial torque, and are thus ready to be flung out again, compounding the first momentum loss with a second, and so on - each time a mass cycles in and out, it applies negative inertial torque but not equal opposite positive torque.

And again, remember, the very thing causing these torques that are destroying momentum is CoAM!

And there's nothing stopping us rectifying only the positive torques, and dodging all the negative ones - yes, we'd need on-board PE stores for this, but don't worry about that for now - just supposing we had sufficient energy, we could keep adding ever-more momentum, side-stepping the reciprocal negative torques from the re-extending masses, for any number of cycles, until we ran out of energy.

The point of course is not that infinite energy could buy infinite momentum, but simply that we could buy any at all from within a closed system of radially-cycling masses. The point is that it's even on offer and available in the first place.

And this applies equally WRT getting shot of the stuff.

You're seeing it, but not putting it together... if ALL the masses extended at the same time, while rotating only (no linear section), then the system momentum would remain constant! It would not waiver!

If only one mass extended, while the others stayed locked to their poles, rotating only with no linear section, the net system momentum will decrease.

Basically, the momentum of ANY and ALL non-radially-translating mass IS modified precisely BY the action of CoAM on the radially-translating mass, in so doing, changing the momentum up or down of all the other moving mass connected to the same motion.

Hence by successively only applying inertial torque of one sign, and skipping over the corresponding opposing torque - by changing radius around the zero-CF straight section instead of the rotating section - we progressively lower or raise the momentum of what would normally be regarded as a very much closed system.

You're seeing the wood, you're seeing the trees... i can't be the only one seeing the unicorn?

[MrVibrating]

Did the last animation really not help? I thought it was the smoking gun.. :| It clearly shows that negative torques applied by the masses extending under CF likewise decelerate the linearly-moving masses, eating net system momentum. Ie. it self-evidently demonstrates CoAM violating CoM, rectifying only negative torques from closed-loop radial trajectories.

It did, but I needed to hear it again - call me hard of hearing, or in denial ;7)

So all in all, in a single-sentence summary, ... MoI variations invoke CoAM to change speed to maintain net AM, but when connected to a linearly-moving system too, its velocity is being changed, which is a momentum change - so by conserving AM, CoAM has inadvertently broken CoM, changing the net momentum of a closed system, and furthermore being able to move in and out while sidestepping these torque inductions means we can have a closed-loop cycle that only generates torque of one or other sign, and so adding or subtracting net momentum.

You know .. each part I can visualize as discrete steps. Thanks for taking the time and having the patience to say it all again. I would like to see a simple sim with say 1 pole and sliding mass etc doing a circuit of the oval race track, just to compare to my mental model, if you have the inclination ?

I underlined one part of particular resonance for me, which is "torque of one or other sign"- only because of blatant self interest, and my mentioning it takes nothing away from you. For a long time I believed Bessler's wheels must have worked on accumulated momentum brought about by more positive torque than negative torque. I couldn't figure out for the life of me how he might have done it. Let's hope you have solved the physics of the conundrum.

Just some random out-there thoughts, though you don't need my encouragement for sure.

MT48 - a Bessler poternoster design - "The principle is good, but this figure will bring about no mobility by itself until completely different, additional structures have been provided (bless this marriage)." Of all Bessler's MT hints/comments this one associated with MT48 baffled me greatly because it was so out-there i.e. it's a ball transference design that uses a geared elevator - what gives ? - WHAT additional structures could bless this marriage and bring about mobility ? The simple elevator lift design could never work on its own because the elevator cannot keep up the supply of balls and needed to be geared up to do so. But then the OB wheel would not provide the necessary energy to achieve the required elevator speed to keep up supply.

Unless momentum could be accumulated somehow and put to work.

As a last random thought .. I sure hope you are right. I often wondered what the trigger would be for the person who had the insight to the problem. Heisenberg (QM) never solved the problem of how to reach a run-away cascade effect (the propagation of a fast neutron chain reaction) in creating the atomic bomb. He didn't have the 'uh huh' moment. But Oppenheimer did. He had been a theoretical physicist previously studying black holes and he realized that BH's collapsed under gravitational force, then they exploded. And so he saw that a possible solution was to cause a massive conventional implosion as a catalyst to propagate the run-away chain reaction) - he was proved right. Why do I mention this ? - because whilst it may be a lame analogy it seems to me you want to implode the your device to cause a positive momentum chain reaction.

Now I'm going to see what questions or arguments others have, and of course, wish you the very best of British ! It's been very interesting so far.

Cheers mate, and yes, momentum seems to be the name of the game, which is unintuitive as i've spent years priming myself to try reduce everything to neat input vs output F*d integrals. But it also seems to be the way out of the CF-rising-with-KE-gains tail-chasing problem - we can let CoAM dynamically vary the MoI of a spring-tensioned variable-radius flywheel, to stack away momentum without gaining velocity, and thus without pitting ourselves against ever-rising CF.

Harvesting the PE of that momentum means that this governor mechanism either has to stop and start its rotation relative to that of the main system - to give us a chance to relax its spring - or else we use the linear-motion trick to temporarily eliminate CF and unload the spring..

Still foggy on the details. But the solution's laying itself out, it seems. The energy gradient i believe should have characteristics general to effective N3-violations, which again is unintuitive but the general principle is as follows: the reason KE squares with velocity (1/2mV^2 or 1/2MoI*RPM^2) ultimately comes down to the practical requirement for reaction mass, and thus to incur equal opposite momenta.

Normally, the unit cost of momentum accumulates by V^2 the more we buy, and so the more speed we have, and so the more force over displacement work we must expend to achieve each successive unit of momentum.

So the first 1 kg/m-s costs just .5 J. But the second costs 2 J - a 400% markup! A third costs 4.5 J, and the fourth, identical 1 kg/m-s unit of momentum costs 8 J. And so on.

But the excess energy that evolves from an effective N3 violation dodges this accumulator - whatever the unit energy cost of momentum, it is potentially constant, not rising with system velocity. In effect, the rise in velocity of the net system has not been paid for - it has too much momentum, as observed from a static frame. It's only paying for its internal displacements, not the uncancelled or asymmetrically-accumulating momentum.

So there must be a component that is accelerated by inertial torques, ahead of the wheel's rotation, without inducing a corresponding counter-torque, which also has OU KE as measured from a stationary frame, but which may or may not be OU from within the rotating frame.

I'm seeing vague implications again of why stators can't be used, whereas i'd recently been questioning that assumption, in this config at least - remember, if i accelerate a 1 kg load ahead of me by 1 m/s while riding a shopping cart, you see my momentum drop by 1/2 kg/m-s, and its increase by the same amount.

Whereas, if i accelerate that momentum without incurring counterforce, you see momentum and energy creation, but nothing's changed between me and the mass i'm accelerating - i've spent the same energy, performed the same amount of work... but if my trolley was at 1 m/s already, and i throw 1 kg forwards by a further 1 m/s, i've only performed half a joule of input work, whereas you've witnessed its energy rise by 2 J - four times more energy than i've spent..

It now seems near-certain this is the kind of dynamic we'll be dealing with - and an unreciprocated inertial torque, that can sink or source momentum in an otherwise closed-system, is of course an effective N3 break - it's momentum without counter-momentum...

So something aboard the accelerating wheel is accelerating within the wheel's rest frame, and being accelerated by inertial torque from an unbalanced MoI variation - and so without applying counter-torque back to the wheel.

Given that a stator appears to be the optimal means for forcing this reluctant trajectory, if statorless really is a necessity then it must be something to do with the difference between relative vs intrinsic motion, or perhaps keeping system KE below stored PE, to minimise CF - or perhaps something to do with his requirement for verticality and thus presumably gravity...

TBH i ain't got a clue... ain't slept properly in days... all that's happened here is we've seen a door ajar, albeit one usually firmly bolted shut. We've seen a bit of ankle. Really, it's more than that - a system being thermodynamically open or closed is kind of all or nothing, like being a little bit preggers.. and paternosters can vary their closed-system momentum, without reference to gravity or dissipative losses, in a way that purely angular or linear motions cannot. Cannot, by law, of the supposedly highest authorities.

LOL i spent two years stuck trying to work out how to rectify unilateral inertial torques, before realising only recently that Bessler's wheels were also offloading copious momentum, whereas these inertial torques only occur because they conserve momentum..

Then i realised that any non-radially-translating mass attached to the flung masses IS having its momentum changed. Normally we don't consider this challenging, as the momentum change is undone by the almost-inevitable reciprocal torque when the radius resets. And then it dawned on me that paternosters have round-ish bits, but also straight-ish bits - and all these floating factoids started to automatically snap together into some kind of coherence..

I'll do some more sims over the coming days, but seeing if counterposed angons form linons is too compelling a question to leave unanswered, if all we need to do is give it some coasting internal angular and net linear velocity and see if there's any exchange or interaction.. i'm half-expecting to see a linear braking effect.. because if that works, then, just.. wow..

I'm now beginning to see that the poles are just an awkward throwback to the original inspiration of radial poles on a classic paternoster. But they could be superseded by discs, or slots / tracks etc.. - something less mechanically precarious would be an improvement..

So yes, next time i'll try a single mechanism for comparison - it only dawned on me last night that the system would self-syncronise adequately with springs, without requiring pulley hookups, and so not requiring direct couplings between masses simultaneously going straight and around, and so not requiring two pairs of them to counterbalance!

We would still need a second weight in order to change its momentum with the other one, though...

Unless we just used the rotor's momentum - i was thinking, keep the rotor mass minimal, to highlight the interaction between CoAM and CoM just between the identical masses in closed-circuit.. type stuff..

Knackered, too much ranting not enough doing. Going bed.. if i can get any sleep... the door's wide open to exploit CoAM's cavalier disregard for anything else's momentum, bashically.. jobsworthy lout that it is, we can make it conserve momentum right out of existence, but just as surely, trick it into conserving far more than we're going to pay for..

Remember, don't be put off by the appearance of costs. We'll find an obvious way to manage PE to cope with these, since the defining characteristic of energy from an N3 break is this effect of the freely-accelerated system momentum inflating the effective energy value relative to the static frame - so a half-joule kg/m-s that accelerated a mass from 9 to 10 m/s as observed from the static frame is worth 9.5 J, in the static frame... ie. in the frame of gravity...

Whatever, don't worry, we're in. This is the chord by which the whole thing unravels. Non-constant momentums is something tangible - once you've bucked N3 almost anything else you do creates energy. It's almost hard not to..

[Fletcher]

Hey .. grab some much deserved sleep - you've earned it. And you've shared freely and openly all the way along your journey which speaks volumes to your character. Whether you are ultimately right or wrong.

FWIW .. when you are fully rested it might be a good idea to start from scratch again and test each component proposition a second or nth time, that builds to the inevitable outcome you see.

Just to be sure something ain't 'off' in the hypothesis. It's always possible something critical has been missed in the adrenaline rush - besides, often things can be simplified a second time around, or tested in an alternative way, if that's possible.

We'd all like to at the very least see a unicorn, but you can't catch one till you know in which forest to look.

[Gregory]

Hey MrV,

Cheers mate, and yes, momentum seems to be the name of the game, which is unintuitive as i've spent years priming myself to try reduce everything to neat input vs output F*d integrals. But it also seems to be the way out of the CF-rising-with-KE-gains tail-chasing problem - we can let CoAM dynamically vary the MoI of a spring-tensioned variable-radius flywheel, to stack away momentum without gaining velocity, and thus without pitting ourselves against ever-rising CF.

Harvesting the PE of that momentum means that this governor mechanism either has to stop and start its rotation relative to that of the main system - to give us a chance to relax its spring - or else we use the linear-motion trick to temporarily eliminate CF and unload the spring..

I think I get where you are going with that spring tensioned flywheel governor thingy. I can say this is truly a genius idea (even if it won’t work at the end), it made me think hard. :)
But there might be a few problems, I try to address them…

First one, as you mentioned most likely it has to start and stop periodically.
Second, it can only compensate for the rpm change after the rpm have already been changed.
Third, if it is designed to extend springs to store PE, then the compensating mass will not fly out as far as CF/CoAM would otherwise dictate. The energy corresponding for the missing travel component will be stored in the spring as spring PE. You can choose weak spring with long extension or strong spring with short extension. This means that you can’t acquire all the energy which is needed to pull in a weight under peak CF, only a portion of it, and also as you have a MoI varying device for the compensation the system will not be accelerated as much as it would without it...

My gut feeling is that due to the governor device while gaining spring PE you also lose acceleration, and I presume that these values are the same amount, therefore it will still end up with a zero sum game. Although I haven’t checked this, so I can be wrong.

I modyfied my old simulation to see what happens if I pull in at high rpm and send out at zero, and it ended up with zero sum. That is because the system have to work against high CF at high rpm. If there would be some additional force (from another source) to help in retracting the masses, then it would self rotate for sure. I modelled this by adding some pseudo forces switched in at 5 sec. File is attached…

Otherwise, I think I have an interesting idea for you about the paternoster riders. I will come back with that a bit later.