Flippin' Flywheels

[Grimer]

...
"Ersatz" is a German word for fake or imitation,

"German, from ersetzen to substitute"

So it's a substitute for NG in a space station.

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

Hi Grimer,

so if Ersatz Gravity is German for Artificial Gravity then it is starting to make a little sense, If I could speak German that is.

[cloud camper]

Cloud camper, please explain what that promise means... even when only applicable in some simulation: the explanation shouldn't make a difference.
So how do you know it "works" when you "can't help on the units but research is in progress. ?
I hope you start to see where all my questions come from.
And if it's easy, than why it's so hard to get a consistent answer.

First off I haven't promised/claimed anything. We're merely discussing hypothetical results from a hypothetical simulation based on an unproven hypothesis!

And if Frank chooses to theorize about those results, I can't stop him!

No really I would love to give you a satisfying answer but derivatives of position past the second are not taught in Physics as the first and second are adequate to describe 99% of the mechanics of motion. But 3rd derivative effects show up in simulation when you go out of your way to produce them!

Here's an example from a physics forum:

"Why don't we consider jerk in physics classes?

During high-school and college I modeled all dynamic mechanical systems with displacement, velocity and acceleration. This was more than enough to address the systems and determine their behavior in the time domain for a certain external stimulation.

However, some part of my intuition keeps on telling me that further derivation past the second order of the displacement should also play a role, that is, the derivative of the acceleration should also be important when talking about dynamic systems.

For example, I feel completely different when accelerating smoothly but steadily harder (I get gradually pressed into my seat, as the derivative of the acceleration is small), compared to when I brake very hard (I go from no acceleration to full acceleration). (See this question for other examples).

I know this is a weird question, but somehow I fail to reason about it and none of my text-books even mentions deriving the acceleration."

http://physics.stackexchange.com/questi ... ect=1&lq=1

[Grimer]

"Why don't we consider jerk in physics classes?"

My answer would be:

Because physicists and painters think in 2 dimensions whereas engineers, architects and sculptors think in three.

WM2D isn't called 2D for nothing - which is why no one has found the answer using it.

Posted: 20th October 2015, 10:23 am Post subject: re: A kiiking rider is only days away!


Above is an orthographic view of the Carnot cycle variable space.

Green represents volume, blue pressure and red temperature. The arrow direction shows the power cycle. For the refrigeration cycle arrows will be in the opposite direction.

Sorry about the horizontal arrows. I put them on in MS Paint. My 12 year old programmer didn't know how to put arrows on in blender (or was too idle to work it out ;-) .... ). Paint only provides horizontal and vertical arrows.

This diagram can be seen a the twisted circle show previously forced into a Procrustean orthogonal bed. This is illustrated by the angle of viewing shown below.



As you can see it is essentially the same figure 8 on it's side form as the digram I likened to an infinity sign.

I have gone for the perspective view in this case rather than the orthographic since its easier to visualise the 3D aspect.

The problem of getting energy out of the pendulum is essentially the same problem as getting energy out of the Carnot cycle.

In the Carnot everything depends on the adiabatic legs of the cycle. Without these there is no power.

Likewise, in the Pendulum cycle everything depends on the change in acceleration legs. Without these there is no power.

Interestingly enough I have just started to read MrVibrating's stuff on the general form and right at the start he talks about change in acceleration.

Like the men of Hindustan we seem to be looking at the same elephant. .. :-)

You can trot up and down the 2D isothermal for ever but you won't generate as single calorie of energy.

[ME]

First off I haven't promised/claimed anything. We're merely discussing hypothetical results from a hypothetical simulation based on an unproven hypothesis!

Fine.

And if Frank chooses to theorize about those results, I can't stop him!

True... And yet you're using those theories too on this open forum.
I just ask what they are, continuously.

Cloud camper, this post: [link]:

(Quoting Waltzcee, who quotes cloud camper)...
More specifically,

• angular momentum energy,
• third derivative energy,
• energy produced by the third derivative force F3.

Yup, Frank's got it right. Spinning up the yo-yo is just a 1/1 conversion of GPE to RKE - nothing magic there.
The whole reason to spin up is to create an environment where jerk energy (3rd derivative energy) can be created, amplified then stored.
Frank has been saying this for years!
The simulation is pretty convincing. The question still remains how accurate does WM2D simulate jerk energy?
Hence the physical test rig.
I think I will prolly post the sim. I don't want to emulate a certain inventor who posted over one million words without offering a single testable idea!
And it will show how Frank had it right all along and will show how shock and mechanical resonance just naturally go together!

I don't know what you know or don't know, hence the more reasons to keep to standardized terminology.
But in the midst of your use of all those other words and terminology (either taught in Physics-class or not) it puzzles me even more...
You still need to know what Frank precisely meant by this "3rd derivative energy" before knowing for sure your hypothetical sim has a hypothetical probability that "it will show" what Frank actually meant..right?
(seems like good promising start of a claim)

While reclaimed again with the recent "But 3rd derivative effects show up in simulation...": Again, how do you know - what does it show?
Now you've made me produce this lyrical sentence:

• You can't claim you don't know what to show while you know you are able to show precisely that thing you claim you don't know... you know?

In the mean-time there are who-wants-to-count-how-many cross-reconfirmations and acknowledgements...
So we now know you all agree with what's been said, and we all know Grimer is happy to points out mistakes (in red): so with this knowledge and all those acknowledgements flying all over the place it's almost without a question everyone understands eachother... except me: I ask.

When "EG" is apparently responsible for all what's specifically listed then I think it's either BS or needs a lot of explaining before it can be tucked away as being basic stuff.
We now "know" EG is just Centrifugal (ooooh!), so what about the rest being put specifically on that list, those are not Centrifugal stuff, some not specific for rotation.

I still agree with my remark in some later post in that same topic: "Thumbs up for your workshop images."
Credit where credit is due: but only for what you've build and shown..

[ME]

The danger here is if you create your own language, don't be surprised if nobody else understands it, even more so if you create your own science.

Makes me wonder, what happens to IP/copyrights when some winning paper (or patent application) gets secretly rewritten by smart peer-reviewers who instructed you to return with something more compliant?
Perhaps nothing, but why risk it?

I just think the use of undefined definitions is harmful for many reasons.
We now name this "fake news" or "alternative facts": Unreferenced and unverifiable information still used as building blocks of knowledge.. (I created this definition myself)

"Ersatz" is just another word for that major "Fictitious"-force in a rotating environment: "Centrifugal",
Why use one word over the other? As Grimer advises sometimes: "DYOR" or Look it up!
Grimer's elitist use of "Ersatz" still doesn't give you the formula or a more verbose explanation one probably wants or needs.

Furcurequs made perfect sense in some nerdy way. But to use this word to enable talking about dropping toothbrushes seems a bit excessive while still lacking the appropriate a space station.

Cloud camper reminded us all that our knowledge floats more or less around basic-Physics, why overcomplicate things?

[Furcurequs]

Furcurequs made perfect sense in some nerdy way.

Aw, you made me blush.

...as in:

'she blushed at the unexpected compliment'

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/blush

[Fletcher]

Hey ME .. that would be ersatz news then ;7)

I don't know about you but I read what people write and often have to interpret their words into some physics framework/language that I think I understand.

For Frank I simply substitute ersatz (force) with artificial and then when I think about the physics to explain it I think of linear inertia and the Centripetal formula. It's the only one available to do the job I think. So now I have a force definition in Newton's.

But I want to get to energy so I have to invoke the Work Energy Equivalence Principle (WEEP) which has force and displacement to give Joules of energy equivalence. Now I can compare apples with apples. I think we all do this without even thinking.

As and example I was once fascinated by a radial wing (like a full circle pendulum with a wing on a radial) - it produced two forces while under the influence of gravity and speeding up in the drop phase for example. Lift FORCE and Drag FORCE. Interestingly I had the wing mech on slides that allowed it to move in the z plane, so this gave me potential for the Lift Force to displace itself a distance. The formula said it could, and it did. But there should also be Drag Force and I had a little inspiration. The Drag Force would also be speed dependent and active whilst the wing was moving. Logic said that and Joules from moving the wing in the z plane should not be greater than the combined Drag Force applied over a two thirds wing circumference (but good efficient designs could have extremely low drag coefficients). IOW's, COE should apply. But it didn't, not in sim world anyway using standard industry formulas that even NASA uses. It looked like a winning proposition. There was excess force x displacement (above drag accumulated costs) that was used to self pull the wing around even faster thru a 'pull mech'.

Anyways, the sim worked but a real world build did not. The accepted formulas just weren't accurate enough approximations for the theory of flight over all speeds and it was ultimately a bust. That did teach me that not all forces are 100% accurately described by the math we use, in all situations (at least these ones relating to flight anyway).

Enough digression, and today I'm as guilty as the next guy, but I would like to see Mr V's thread stay relatively 'clean' and on topic too. He's doing a good job of conjuring a unicorn out of thin physics air and I don't want to distract him or anybody reading this thread because it takes careful thought to attempt to follow him, let alone add anything that might be insightful or enlightening for him or us.

All the Best

[agor95]

I tried something and got an interesting result.

I started with a pendulum and got the KE+PE to be stable a conservative value.

Then I had two pendulum fixed together.

The mass at the ends 1kg.
Lengths 0.9 & 1.1 meters
g 9.8

The PE drops as the KE goes up, fine with me;The KE+PE changes?

Does anyone see this with their sim software?

I hope this is not fake news.

[Grimer]

Now these map neatly onto the three Carnot variables.
1st derv. maps to volume.
2nd derv. maps to pressure.
3rd derv. maps to compreture.

And because they do so map I'm confident that by cycling around the three derivatives of motion it will be possible to get energy from a NG potential difference in an analogous way to getting energy from a compreture difference.

So thanks for your post, ME. It's helped me to organise my ideas. :-)

(sorry about the neologism, compreture. I didn't do it to annoy you.
Unfortunately there isn't a word for inverse temperature even though it's more fundamental than temperature - so I've has to invent one - :-)... )

"According to English precedent, silence means consent."

So I presume that members are quite happy with my claim the inverse temperature is more fundamental.... :-)

[MrVibrating]

@Fletch - Cheers mate but i'm done with this thread for now, it's got a bit long and and everything i've gained here pretty much distills down into my new thread... (which incidentally i do appreciate remaining clear for now, not least since i've little idea what the hell i'm doing, much less able to answer many questions on it)..

[Grimer]

@Fletch - Cheers mate but I'm done with this thread for now, it's got a bit long and and everything I've gained here pretty much distils down into my new thread... (which incidentally I do appreciate remaining clear for now, not least since I've little idea what the hell I'm doing, much less able to answer many questions on it)..

I think that is an excellent idea for people not to interrupt the line of argument on your new thread.

If I have any comments I will start a thread of my own for them. :-)

[ME]

Grimer: I think that is an excellent idea for people not to interrupt:

We've all been there.

http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewt ... 927#150927

[cloud camper]

But in the midst of your use of all those other words and terminology (either taught in Physics-class or not) it puzzles me even more...
You still need to know what Frank precisely meant by this "3rd derivative energy" before knowing for sure your hypothetical sim has a hypothetical probability that "it will show" what Frank actually meant..right?
(seems like good promising start of a claim)

While reclaimed again with the recent "But 3rd derivative effects show up in simulation"

OK we know that the 3rd derivative of position "jerk" is a real phenomena not
imaginary so can therefore be observed in simulation.

This is not a claim, this is a fact. It's not mysterious.

If one bangs their fist on a table, one can feel and hear the effects of jerk
(or shock) and actually feel the oscillations created.

Jerk can only be experienced in terms of energy and if there's no energy
associated with it, jerk does not exist!

So getting all pissyfaced about "3rd derivative energy" being real or not is inappropriate.
There is ALWAYS energy associated with jerk.

And when Frank discusses it, again it has REAL ENERGY.

The only question that arises in our context is whether that "3rd derivative energy"
can be used to produce overunity.

I have produced a simulation that possibly demonstrates that it can but it is
only a simulation therefore no claims until it can be confirmed physically.

So right now only a 5 foot plank to cross a 10 foot creek. If that.

But if Frank chooses to spend his time theorizing about how this idea could
be justified in advance of any physical evidence, that's for him to decide and
could only help in documenting the effect.

Personally, I am very grateful to have Frank on board and that he has experience
in higher derivative physical reactions and is interested in documenting the effect (if real).
If he has a few British quirks, so be it!

In the meantime, finding any math that has been developed to show how jerk
energy is produced/quantized is very difficult or even impossible.

It can even be a discontinuous function and math does not like discontinuities!
Who knows what the hell happens then!

I was never taught anything about it in physics classes and neither was anyone else
so basically we're starting from scratch. It could be a long trip.

So I am very sorry that's not good enough for you!

[cloud camper]

duplicate post