Flippin' Flywheels

[Tarsier79]

I like the last one you did. What pulls the scissors inwards?

[MrVibrating]

Just a spring set to trigger at a specific moment..

However those last two are very rough and dirty compared to the tests i have in mind, which will be elementary, bare bones examinations of how these types of interactions affect the distributions of momentum...

[MrVibrating]

Here's another one to try:

- use the variable-inertia concept to lift a weight quickly!

"But GPE's speed/time invariant" you're thinking... and yes, of course it is!

But lifting an unbalanced load also means sacrificing velocity, and thus momentum!

Whereas, if we lift an unbalanced load at constant speed by unleashing inertial torque, we don't shed that momentum - we still have it all upon reaching TDC... If we then accelerate as usual during the subsequent unbalanced drop, we've gained momentum through a closed loop, having basically converted it from sprung PE.

To seal the deal we'd then need to reload the spring via a method that doesn't vary momentum, such as CoAM..

There's energy unity, but also momentum unity.. breaking the former doesn't necessarily have any bearing on the latter, whereas OU momentum means we also get free energy.. it's a different way of thinking about the whole problem, shifting the focus from energy to momentum...

[Grimer]

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. Henry "Billy the Kid" McCarty
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?

YES - we will definitely succeed.
I'll be Frank James.
You can be Henry "Billy the Kid" McCarty. ;-)

[ME]

Frankly, no!
I like to be ME
At present

Four laws of
thermodynamics:
overruled

[MrVibrating]

Quick update...

Tried to take some distance from this over the last week, was getting a bit manic... umm... was starting to relax and just deal with the fact i was obviously wrong, had to be, not for the first or last time, just needed to man up and work through my mistakes to tie up this whole dumb concept. Came back to it this evening with some more very simple tests, and i'm afraid that my original conclusion on this - that the system momentum is open, not closed; being variable (increasing or decreasing) from within the system.. still stands. In fact it really is unequivocal. Generating fresh momentum, or likewise, getting rid of it, is perfectly feasible from within an otherwise totally-isolated closed system, so long as you have PE.

Over this weekend i'll show in extremely simply steps how to generate momentum from nowhere, without the need for reaction mass.

Doubtless i will yet come to my senses and renege on all of this nonsense(?)... but for now, i'm also fairly confident that we have reactionless propulsion in the bag (it's just a pair of contra-rotating robernosters side-by-side). More on this tomorrow, hopefully. Don't wanna burn myself out staying up all night again..

I don't have OU yet. That is, i know how and where to look for that measurement, but haven't attempted it yet - again, it's an emergent thing, arising in the way KE evolves in an N3-violating system, relative to a stator, so gaining energy simply requires applying successive reactionless and unreciprocated torques, and thus the momentum-from-nowhere this induces.... not 'free' momentum, but not subject to velocity tax, either, which is where we make our energy gains.

The matter is even simpler than i'd supposed. A combined rotary-linear trajectory is the keys to the safe. It's the meaning of MT 143 (as i suspected months ago)..

[MrVibrating]

"A large herd of fat, lazy horses wanders aimlessly..."

How old do you think the classic horse racing track shape is? Pretty old, probably..

Apparently the name for a rectangle with semicircular ends is "obround", however it seems race tracks actually use intersecting clothoid curves, precisely to eliminate abrupt changes in CF/CP... a useful tip here perhaps?

http://math.stackexchange.com/questions ... race-track

[MrVibrating]

I'll quickly describe the reactionless thrust concept, to give everyone a chance to refute it before i test it out:

- oval-shaped track with radially-sliding masses as before

- two side-by-side, one running clockwise, the other anticlockwise

- pull the masses in at 12 o' clock, both in sync

- move them back out on either of the flat sides, and repeat that same trajectory!


...pulling the masses inwards at 12 o' clock also tugs the axles upwards, but moving them back outwards under zero-CF only involves rest inertia, not CF or CP forces. Besides which, re-extending the masses on the linear sections induces equal opposing inertias between the two mirror-image CW and CCW tracks - ie. extend the CW one at 3 o' clock while simultaneously extending the CCW one at 9 o' clock... then let both coast back around to 12 o' clock and pull them inwards again - to my addled thinking, the angular components cancel, leaving a net unbalanced CP force upon the axles / center of mass.


The only reservation i currently have is that if it were this easy, why not just use regular circular trajectories, and stop the rotors before re-extending - surely this concept gets tried and failed regularly, so firstly why doesn't this work, and secondly, is the above variation any different in that respect?

[Grimer]

...

Tried to take some distance from this over the last week, was getting a bit manic... umm... was starting to relax and just deal with the fact I was obviously wrong, had to be, not for the first or last time, just needed to man up and work through my mistakes to tie up this whole dumb concept. Came back to it this evening with some more very simple tests, and I'm afraid that my original conclusion on this - that the system momentum is open, not closed; being variable (increasing or decreasing) from within the system.. still stands. In fact it really is unequivocal. Generating fresh momentum, or likewise, getting rid of it, is perfectly feasible from within an otherwise totally-isolated closed system, so long as you have PE.

Over this weekend I'll show in extremely simply steps how to generate momentum from nowhere, without the need for reaction mass.

Doubtless I will yet come to my senses and renege on all of this nonsense(?)... but for now, I'm also fairly confident that we have reactionless propulsion in the bag (it's just a pair of contra-rotating robernosters side-by-side). More on this tomorrow, hopefully. Don't wanna burn myself out staying up all night again..

I don't have OU yet. That is, I know how and where to look for that measurement, but haven't attempted it yet - again, it's an emergent thing, arising in the way KE evolves in an N3-violating system, relative to a stator, so gaining energy simply requires applying successive reactionless and unreciprocated torques, and thus the momentum-from-nowhere this induces.... not 'free' momentum, but not subject to velocity tax, either, which is where we make our energy gains.

The matter is even simpler than I'd supposed. A combined rotary-linear trajectory is the keys to the safe. It's the meaning of MT 143 (as I suspected months ago)..

... was getting a bit manic... umm...

I know the feeling. Mr.V. We've all been there. :-)

Over this weekend I'll show in extremely simply steps how to generate momentum from nowhere, without the need for reaction mass.

I look forward to it. You will be following in the footsteps of Prof Laithwaite.

Doubtless I will yet come to my senses and renege on all of this nonsense(?)...

I sincerely hope not.

The matter is even simpler than I'd supposed.

These things always are - when we can see them.

[Grimer]

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.

"I think she's got it.... By George she's got it."

Let's edit your "bottom line" a bit:

Pulling mass inwards creates more angular momentum whilst extending it
out creates more linear momentum.

You are cycling between 3rd derivative energy and 1st derivative energy.

The boundary case is where the radius tends to infinity to give pure linear momentum and zero to give pure angular momentum.

It seems to me you have discovered how to convert the change in acceleration towards the centre inherent in a 360° pendulum into constant acceleration towards the centre.

Congratulations.

In effect you have discovered an NG-EG gravity cycle.

[Grimer]

]

The ballerina is spinning because the muscles in her/his body are making movements which cause the rotation.Arms in,less air resistance,faster spin.Arms out,more air resistance,slower spin.

IMO,this example cannot be used to illustrate conservation of movement or force,as there is constant energy being supplied to the system.

...something else just clicked - according to Wolffe's testimony, after the translocation during the Merseburg test, while Bessler was replacing the weights into the wheel, he was seen to push downwards on a spring, which was heard to rebound noisily.

I think a significant clue was given accidentally when the spring smacked the wheel.

That was the 2nd time I mentioned this accidently given clue. The springs might be considered the mechanical battery storing energy. Supplied from what though? What's obvious is the expense of friction necessitates even more energy. Pumping mass in and out requires energy. Frictions likewise. What picks up this tab? It seems the old saw, "there is no free lunch" still holds true.

I'm glad you are drawing attention to the importance of the spring.

A spring enables energy to be transferred from a lower gravitational potential to a higher gravitational potential without significant energy loss since the strain energy within the spring is generally far greater then the energy required to lift the spring against the force of gravity.

This means that we can transfer the energy from the lower part of a 360° pendulum to the higher part, thus enabling the pendulum go over the top and rotate continuously giving us PM until the spring fails in fatigue or the bearings wear out.

If the energy is transferred in a controlled manner then we end up with a constant rpm pendulum. All the 3rd derivative energy (change in acceleration toward the centre, i.e. jerk energy) has been transmuted into 2nd derivative energy (acceleration towards the centre, i.e. acceleration energy)

So the answer to Walt's question:

"Supplied from what though?"

Supplied from Newtonian gravity acting on the falling weight which charged up the spring with strain energy near the nadir and after being carried up the Newtonian potential gradient released its strain energy near the zenith -

Edit: Changed apogee to zenith to be consistent (both nadir and zenith come from Arabic)

[agor95]

It is good to see we are going in the same constructive direction.

nadir - is a lot better than saying 'at the bottom of the swing'.

The wheel presses down more when running than when still.

That is were the energy comes into the system form
outside.

Regards

[cloud camper]

Congratulations

In effect you have discovered an NG-EG gravity cycle.

Frank - I'm thrilled you have taken an interest in my NG/EG Oscillation concept first proposed here http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum viewtopic.php?t=6335&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=60 but I'm curious why you didn't see fit to credit me?

It seems strange that you would now be throwing such concepts around as if they were your own idea when in the very next post you pooped on the whole concept.

You might also note that in that same post I went out of my way to credit you in your use of non standard terminology.

I guess there's a lot of truth in that old saying "Good ideas have a thousand father's but a bad idea is always an orphan"!

[Grimer]

I am only too delighted to credit you and have done whenever I could.
I wouldn't dream of deliberately plagiarizing one of your ideas.

I freely admit that the idea which I am putting forward is based on the idea Cloud Camper put forward in the link he gave, namely the idea of storing energy in a spring at one level of NG potential and releasing it at another.

I assume that is the idea you are referring to. If not, tell me what it is and I will credit you accordingly. :-)

[cloud camper]

Sorry Frank, I guess I went a little overboard there, didn't sleep too well last nite - we've had a lot of fun together on the forum so sorry to rag on you.

I described the process as an NG/EG oscillation cycle, you called it a NG/EG gravity cycle.

On a positive note, this concept has now passed peer review by our forum's meanest, nastiest, kick em when there down, shoot em in the back, never give an inch, most highly physics trained, hard core Bessler skeptic on the forum, Eccentrically1.

I purposely picked ECC1 because he was a skeptic. Although he had some concerns about air friction (I do too), could not find a fatal flaw anywhere in the documentation or simulation. We went thru all the math and no errors there either.

And he didn't seem real happy about it as I think he thought it would be a breeze to debunk. Surprisingly there were no personal attacks or even
bad language involved! (He's actually a very nice guy!).

But now he seems to have disappeared from the forum! WTF??