Plying CF as pseudo-inertia to scam N3

[MrVibrating]

Very succinctly put, thank you CC!

[MrVibrating]

So a couple of options for using CF to either directly power the inertial acceleration, or else the springs or GPE load used (although that increasingly seems needlessly over-complicated - why not just use CF directly?)

- i could just stick a single long radial pole somewhere to the previous rig; being long it has high radius and thus CF for a given RPM, and as it rotates through the upper 180°, gravity and CF are of opposing sign - same basic trick as used for the N3 break, here relying on gravity to counter CF - whereas when it's rotating thru the lower 180° arc, gravity and CF combine with like-signs. Therefore, as the system rotates at constant speed we have a modulating or undulating force that we could maybe use to power the inertial interaction...


- alternatively, we could have an opposing pair (or more) of these radial poles with weights sliding in and out on their outer ends, but constrained to an elliptical, rather than perfectly-circular, orbital trajectory. Again, this pulses the CF, potentially providing a useable source of work to power the inertial interaction..


The rationale behind both is obviously that if CF is constant for a given RPM, once some mass has been allowed to fall outwards under CF, to provide power to the internal interaction, it needs to be drawn back in again...

To be clear, i'm not looking for an additional exploit - we've already got the only one we'll need - so i'm not suggesting some kind of asymmetric CF / CP interaction to gain energy... the intention is merely that this will be a zero sum deal, as would any cycling GPE load or spring system..

But, if the inertial interaction is hard-coupled to the CF load, then pulling the masses back together to reset them will also be pulling that CF load back in as well...

Although now, having thought it over a bit, i realise this concern may be redundant - if we're using CF-PE to perform internal work, then the system RKE (and thus RPM) is reduced by precisely this amount... ie. if the inertial interaction costs 9.81 Joules, and we've taken that from RKE, then the RPM's have slowed and thus CF too... thus providing a window of opportunity to reset the CF load before the next interaction..?

Dunno, just throwing out ideas. As a temporary workaround i could just re-use the linear actuator from the first experiment, controlled by a script, and tot up all the momenta and energies manually... but that's kinda defeating the purposes of a sim, and would rightly be received with even more scepticism than a fully-simulated mechanism. But ultimately, what's led me this far is certainty that there was a theoretical solution to be found, and since this seems to perfectly (if not exclusively) fit the bill for energy and momentum gain... there must be a fairly simple mechanical arrangement to accomplish it!. I mean, there can't be a simple theoretical solution but not a physical one. Therefore there is one, and with careful consideration, optimum implementations will start to become obvious.

Remember, Bessler claimed that earlier wheels "worked on completely different principles" - and if this is the only classical symmetry break in nature (i'm 99% certain it is), then they all have to be variations on this basic principle (N3 breaks via externally-augmented inertias). Remember also his claim that he eventually reduced the complexity to the extent that the machine could be serviced whilst still in operation.. So there's almost certainly some kind of "beautiful arrangement" of optimum simplicity we'll eventually converge upon... again, follow the maths and the mechanical solutions should inevitably reveal themselves. Equally, though, that optimum, "beautiful arrangement" is very likely displayed somewhere in his imagery, or else encrypted in his codes (or some degree of both)..

Keep the faith, basically. If this N3 break is effectively real, then it's really effective, and that's all that matters. No other asymmetry is required, and a mechanism definitely can be built to exploit it.

[MrVibrating]

Still just BS'ing, not figured out a simple obvious way to automate all this yet. But whereas gravity wheel attempts are usually fairly simple machines, this one needs to fulfill certain key conditions that, for now, seem to require quite complex mechanical coordination. Nothing intrinsically impractical about it, but there's can openers, and then the machine that makes the cans.. or indeed, the one that makes the opener. I could probably design and build a can opener in a month... but not the other machines..!


Still, like i say, nothing magical is required.. it's just a matter of coordinating these specific actions.


One thing that did strike me today is that in principle, the static force field could be applied by an actual 1 G acceleration - as if the machine were mounted vertically atop a rocket in zero-G.

However, instead of a chemical rocket, you could simply use another asymmetric inertial interaction to provide that thrust.. (or possibly, even the same one..?) in a feedback loop; each powering the other, the thrust causing an acceleration causing an on-board momentum asymmetry and resultant KE gain to drive a second asymmetric inertial exchange vectored linearly, providing the thrust... bat shit or what?

[Fletcher]

What I like about your reasoning Mr V is that it fits with the times.

Bessler knew about momentum, he also used the word 'force'. He didn't know about equations for energy as we do today. So he may have thought about things in terms of momentum rather than capacity to do Work (Energy).

He talked about extra impetus, and that probably meant extra momentum (as he would recognize it).

So it makes sense to look for extra momentum and let the energy take care of itself. Of course you can't escape GPE given and received but he would have known about the Law of Levers which says fundamentally the same thing.

[MrVibrating]

LOL this whole thing now hinges on conservation of momentum applying without prejudice to momentum we've just used it to create...

So the asymmetric distribution is, in the first instance, itself conservative - exactly the right amount of momentum has been imparted, just asymmetrically apportioned between the two inertias.

But because they're of opposing signs, their sum is non-zero, hence a rise in momentum has occurred.

So momentum wasn't conserved, because it was, so it increased.

Kinda how each mass's 'resistance to acceleration' is being accelerated against its partners' 'resistance to acceleration', and so because neither want to accelerate, they're forced to do so.

Basic OU logic.

I think he was thinking in terms of elements. Rather than following either Leibniz or Newton's work too closely, he'd established his own components of motion from first principles, carefully examining his step-by-step objectives, and means. Interactions tend to involve acceleration and deceleration phases, and so thoughts are drawn to possibilities of rectification, and some kind of concept of polarity / signage, responsible for enforcing symmetry.

I don't see how such a system could be developed by 'happy accident'. Recognising the significance of the breakthrough requires an understanding of the role of momentum symmetry in enforcing stasis or rest, and a conscious objective of breaking that particular symmetry.

Even then, the maths do not favour any immediately-obvious anomaly from even a well-made test rig - the energy returns are initially very low - under-unity, in fact - until the net momentum rises beyond a certain speed. Multiple interactions per cycle are required for a system to accelerate straight up to speed from a standing start (i'm not forcing the number five here, but it seems a good fit; 4 to 5 doses of reactionless momentum equates to around 2x OU).

All things considered, it seems most likely i'm making some stupid mistake, again.

Last time, i missed the counter-torques applied to the rail in my 'robernoster' concept. It seemed unassailable until that point. Took me a good couple of weeks to realise, as i recall..

What've i missed this time? It seems to me that the only thing that can undo an objective rise in momentum, is another asymmetric inertial interaction in the opposite direction! Because CoM! And for the same reasons, you can keep cycling it forever, stacking momentum gains ad infinitum...

So yes, without an understanding of KE's scaling dimensions, pursuit of a momentum rise alone wouldn't have foreseen, in a truly, rigorously predictive sense, the full underlying benefits of such a regime, but at the same time, the prospect, perhaps in the absence of anything more promising, would have seemed to have held sufficient merit for further - and quite persistent - investigation, before the machine was capable of generating more RKE than the internal PE required.

I think it's entirely possible he followed pretty much the same initial line of reasoning as i did here - "what is it that constitutes resistance to acceleration?" This property of matter can be viewed as a kind of "elemental influence" - and i mean this only in purely abstract terms - and from there it just kinda becomes obvious that other, external, fields could also fulfill this description.. such as gravity. It so happens that reciprocally, resistance to deceleration is also the field property determining KE, which squares with velocity, while momentum scales linearly, and so the KE value of the system diverges along with its rising momentum; hence a 1 Joule workload internally could be worth 10 J or 100 more... depending only on the peak system velocity that can be sustained.


However, just like Oystein, i'm convinced there's more here... and if anything, that just worries me all the more that this is all too good to be true...

We could replace gravity with permanent magnets, and make one or both of the inertias from steel. No substantive difference, except now we're generating single-signed momentum, free from Earth's reference frame. Vectoring this unilateral momentum in a straight line seems trivial.

So is this our Star Trek moment?

I'm not so sure.. whilst the steel mass is suspended against its freefall towards the magnet by its mutual acceleration against the other mass's inertia, the magnet itself - and whatever's attached to it - such as the frame of the system - is still falling upwards towards the inertially-suspended steel mass. So a net force is being applied to the system.

Equivalently, the same thing is happening when we use gravity this way - the entire planet is falling upwards towards the inertially-suspended weight...

When the lower mass strikes the frame, imparting its unidirectional momentum, does this impact fully balance the momentum equation?

What if we have two counter-rotating systems in free space - is there a net linear force?

All these questions will become clear no doubt. A momentum symmetry break causes weirdness to ensue, and outcomes do not follow normal intuition. Equivalence between all other reference frames is broken, but at the same time, that's the only kind of gradient that could've driven Bessler's wheels.. that is "OU"

So as ever, caveat emptor. Big. Huge, caveat. But it seems solid, for now...

[cloud camper]

Yup - it's a definite maybe.

But it's at least as good as trying to produce a gain from gravitational overbalancing - a proven failure at this point!

It would be nice if we could get a new translation on the Bessler statement that he had "found the solution where everyone had looked". Could there be a bias in the translation toward a gravity only solution?

Or is it likely that Bessler himself did not understand the exact source of the motion?

He did say the motion was caused by "excess impetus". That sounds a lot more like a momentum amplification than gravitational overbalancing.

[MrVibrating]

..the thing is, going back to the gravitic / magnetic comparison, if we're using the principle for energy generation rather than propulsion (if it even has such an application), then the momentum equation is clearly not balanced - the 'anvil' is not the Earth, but rather the angular inertia of the net system.

Therefore as a Bessler wheel runs, the Earth is falling upwards towards the unreciprocated GPE it is being denied in return. So the momentum equations do not balance.

Furthermore, the initial observation that gravity performs no net work upon the interaction is illusory, and false. Gravity is propelling the Earth towards a mass that doesn't always fall back towards it.

In which case momentum symmetry is broken, and we do have reactionless propulsion, not that we'd particularly want it, in these particular circumstances..

So confused..? It's like a friggin' time paradox...

LOL who isn't secretly hoping OU will somehow lead to time machines, eh? Yeah, nah, me neither (lie).

If we could just get mechanical OU without any nasty sting in the tail, that'll be sweet. Propulsion, a total bonus.

Really no magic in any of this, though - every step is entirely dependent upon CoM and CoE doing precisely what they're supposed to. Basic logic then dictates that both are ultimately conserved.. and whatever the relevance of the current findings, this must also be true of Bessler's systems. Or is it? At what level does the "CoM is conserved because it isn't" loop break down? How can the GPE driving the asymmetric division of momentum (ie. the earth falling up towards the inertially-suspended weight) also be driving our wheel? We're driving it with input energy taken from output RKE via CF workloads, where the RKE and CF square with velocity, while the input PE remains a fixed function of inertia. So has that relative RKE gain come at the expense of Earth's GPE with respect to the inertially-suspended weight?

Just trying to follow basic common sense in a momentum asymmetry seems futile.. i ain't got a clue what i'm doing...

[MrVibrating]

Yup - it's a definite maybe.

But it's at least as good as trying to produce a gain from gravitational overbalancing - a proven failure at this point!

It would be nice if we could get a new translation on the Bessler statement that he had "found the solution where everyone had looked". Could there be a bias in the translation toward a gravity only solution?

Or is it likely that Bessler himself did not understand the source of
the motion?

Wasn't it more like "where those with wisdom" or something like that?

Not that i'd particularly paid attention to the clue before, being so ambiguous..

And yet, in a sense, it is gravity that is responsible for causing the momentum asymmetry... no gravity, no gains...

There's no measurable displacement against gravity involved, so it's not doing work internally to the system...

..but as noted, the net system includes the planet. Which is being attracted towards a mass that isn't consistently, reciprocally falling back towards it..

Sorry just can't let that thought go..

I've been toying with the idea of contacting the Dept. of Energy and Environment, or whatever they're called now due to budget cuts.. it would be an absolute duty if this is real. If it's not then i'm gonna make a complete jackass of myself.

But screw the implications for me - at what stage do we have to act, at what level of proof, balanced against the risk of unleashing something pernicious? Our foreknowledge of the risks (too late, you've read it) makes us responsible. If a full working design goes wild, before it can be certified and fully described by proper physics-talking dudes, what then? Are we the good guys, or idiot baddies?

[MrVibrating]

...now that you mention it CC, the more i look at it, the more it seems like it could be some kind of asymmetric gravitational interaction after all... just in a really abstract unintuitive way, and involving the whole Earth.. Could it ultimately be energy from gravity? Could Bessler have conceivably been drawn to this same conclusion, and is making this allusion in that quote?

Dunno.. seems a stretch. It looks like motion from motion, that simply depends upon vertical orientation WRT gravity. Did he have an understanding of gravity's mutuality - that the Earth must also fall upwards, albeit imperceptibly? If he did, it would've undoubtedly weighed on his conscience and sense of responsibility...

Who knows.. all of this is beyond our pay grades. On the face of it, the momentum is "created" by the non-cancelling sum of its gravitationally-skewed distribution, and the KE gain is likewise an inevitable consequence of the divergence of the resulting non-inertial frame, its accumulated velocity adding to that of its internal interactions as measured from the external frame, and hence ultimately the RKE of the net system. So it looks like energy from momentum, which reduces to velocity times inertia; a mass's resistance to velocity change, AKA the Higgs interaction. So, safe as it's gonna get, at least until our local value of mass changes relative to the rest of the universe, destroying everything as we know it.

Maybe we're converting the Higgs field potential into KE of the earth? Ie. propelling the planet, while precipitating a cataclysmic quantum phase transition? Buy one apocalypse, get one free?

Hopefully all this is paranoid gibberish, both the energy and momentum are just free, from nowhere, without consequences, and we'll all live happily ever after. Cheers! Hic. Bed.

[MrVibrating]

OK incremental steps eh..

First things first, it's probably helpful for suspension of disbelief if i repeat the very first interaction, this time with some initial velocity.

In the initial test, the two masses began at stationary relative both to each other, and to our observer reference frame.

The instant the sim begins, they're in free-fall from this standing start, and immediately, an additional 2 G linear force is applied between them, asserting opposing 1 G accelerations upon each.

So each mass is subject to a uniform 1 G downwards acceleration due to gravity, while at the same time, the upper mass is also subject to the additional 1 G upwards acceleration, while the lower one is subject to the opposing additional 1 G downwards acceleration...

So on balance, there's no force at all being applied to the upper mass, and only the lower mass is gaining energy, either from the applied internal force, or from the fall.

Here it is again, for easy reference:




..as you can see, the lower mass ends up with 192 Joules of KE, which has two sources; GPE, plus the internally-applied mutual acceleration. Since both applied equal accelerations, both have performed equal work upon it. Thus, by re-lifting the dropped mass back to its initial height, all of the KE and momentum that came from GPE is returned, leaving precisely half that much again of each remaining... which came exclusively from the applied internal force, and which consists of one sign of momentum only!

This is our symmetry break. When we redistribute that 9.81 kg-m/s of momentum with its partner, via an ordinary elastic collision (such as by pulling a slack chord taut between them, or coasting around an angular trajectory to catch up), each will end up with precisely 9.81 / 2 = 4.905 kg-m/s, and so the net momentum of that otherwise-closed system of two interacting masses has been raised, exclusively by internal work done between them.

This was only made possible by overlaying the inertial interaction with a gravitational one. However, when we then reverse the latter, and re-pay that GPE, we still have our single-signed internally-applied momentum left over. The gravitational interaction was a zero-sum deal, but the inertial interaction gained momentum, purely from an internal expenditure of work.

This is the exploit. This is the yellow brick road to the bridge of The Enterprise...


So, in the next post, i'm gonna re-run this above interaction, but this time, from a non-zero initial starting velocity.

I can promise you, that even if you think you clearly understand the above interaction (and come on, it's not that complicated, right?), what happens next might just do your nut in.. (it's turned mine to praline already)..

[MrVibrating]

In this next run, everything is identical to the previous one, except that both masses begin with an initial downwards velocity of 10 meters/sec, and we are observing from inside the moving reference frame (that of the upper mass):



So, both began with 50 J each of KE, and 10 kg-m/s each of momentum.

As before, let's subtract the work done by gravity, to reveal the net result of the internal inertial interaction:

- The lower mass drops by 20 - 0.2 = 19.8 meters

- Its GPE converted to KE is thus 1 kg * 9.80665 m/s^2 * 19.8 m = 194.171 J

But what about the upper mass, which has also fallen by 10 meters?

- 1 kg * 1 G * 10 meters = 98.0665 J

That's how much its KE would normally have increased by, after falling that height.

But look at the field marked "KE of Upper Mass" - it doesn't falter! It begins and ends with 50 J.

It was not accelerated, by anything. Not by gravity, nor by the internally-applied force.

So its KE and momentum are constant, throughout the interaction...

Instead, the KE and momentum it would've gained, has been imparted to the lower mass.

So, to subtract all of our GPE, we need to remove this output from the lower mass, rather than the upper one.

The total work done by gravity is thus 194.171 J + 98.066 J = 292.237 J

So if we now subtract that 292.237 J from the net rise in the lower mass's KE, we'll be left with just the energy input via the linear acceleration:

- the lower mass's KE rose to 438.473 J, minus our initial 50 J equals 388.473 J, of which 292.237 J came from GPE, leaving a remainder of 96.236 J, which can only have come from the internally-applied interaction.

So this is precisely the same amount of work that was performed in the first interaction, from stationary.

Because inertia is not speed-dependent.

It wouldn't matter how fast our ambient velocity, the internal workload is constant.

But let's also look at the momentum result:

- The momentum of the upper mass was constant, as before

- The lower one's accelerated from an initial 10 m/s, up to 29.613 m/s, so a momentum rise of 19.613 kg-m/s, equivalent to a 2 G acceleration over 1 second

- As before, 1 G of that is from gravity, so half of that rise = 9.81 kg-m/s is from gravity, with the other identical half from the not-so-mutual acceleration.. again, of one sign only..

Again, dividing that 9.81 kg-m/s evenly between both masses accelerates the net system by 4.9 meters / sec.

So in summary, this demonstrates the the same input energy will buy the same rise in net system momentum, irrespective of the rising net velocity.

That cost is precisely 96.23 Joules divided between a 9.81 kg-m/s momentum rise, equaling 9.81 J per kg-m/s.

This energy cost of momentum is maintained as a constant, up to whatever the maximal RPM of the system.

At the same time however, we can also get a glimpse of the kinds of gains that are going to be on offer as this ambient momentum accumulates - that input workload clearly is not going to increase with velocity, yet the KE value of the resulting accelerations as observed form the static frame will, squaring with rising velocity...

Furthermore the energy value of the momentum we're buying is a function of velocity squared, but the energy cost of purchasing it has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with velocity..

If input energy scales linearly, while output energy squares up, then input and output energy fields are literally in different spatio-temporal dimensions, and mutually irreconcilable. The energy cost of accumulating momentum is not supposed to be constant, but the usual V^2 multiplier only applies to momentum purchased via externally-applied forces! Our externally-applied force - gravity - performs no net work upon the system, but it does bias the momentum distribution, resulting in a net gain of momentum, a displacement powered exclusively by internally-supplied work..

If anyone wasn't previously up to speed, we should now all be on the same page..

If you can understand that the above cost of momentum is speed-invariant, and also that KE=1/2mV^2 - ie., that it's not at all speed invariant when purchased via conventional means - then you are looking square at an OU energy gradient. This is what an exploit for mechanical over-unity looks like. The form it must, by definition, take, if ever such a thing were even to exist in the first place.. which apparently.. it does.

[MrVibrating]

...desperately trying to corral the hive mind here... but this is all the waggle-dance i can muster... so far, only CC's feelin' my moves..

People, i do not believe we're going to find a bigger, better clue anywhere. Not from decyphering hidden codes, not even from explicit remarks such as "weights alternating inner / outer positions" (although this interaction could of course fulfill that description.. who cares?)..

At this stage, we very likely have a far more advantageous and thus complete understanding of the exploit than Bessler himself.

If i were you, and you were doing absolutely anything else, then i'd drop whatever i was doing and start doing what you're doing... type stuff..?

I'm tied up with a full-time job, slowing progress. Working together we could cross the finish line that much quicker..

[daxwc]

I have no clue what you built. You have two masses tethered by a pulley?

[Fletcher]

dax .. MrV is using an actuator element to provide the separation accelerations in his WM sim concept.

First the two equal mass weights (the vertical mech) were released from a standing start in a gravity field and at the same instant the actuator is 'fired'.

The top mass of the two has an equal but opposite force applied to it as 'g', effectively cancelling out the two opposing forces i.e. out-of phase forces, no displacement (stationary), no change in mv, no work done, no GPE change, no KE change.

The second lower mass gets an in-phase force boost reinforcement ('g' + actuator acceleration force) i.e. gets all the displacement in the same time interval and all the mv, and all the KE.

Effectively, the concept is to use a stored force to cause a momentum decoupling and thereby increase the KE of the lower mass to do Work.

Coming up with a complete mech to reset initiation energy levels and close the loop etc is the technical task.

The latest sim has 'the mech' dropping in a gravity field so that both masses already have velocity and mv and KE's. To show that the energy cost of firing the 'actuator jack' has no greater cost to the system than if they were stationary at start example.

FWIW you may remember discussions in the past using the horizontal example. About 2 mass blocks on a frictionless tray of a moving truck and being separated by force. What were the mv's and KE's when the tray was stationary and when the tray was at constant speed at force initiation ? This lead to a discussion with jim_mich about relative KE's of the 2 blocks re ability to do Work. At that time the discussion was focused on the rising KE's from a moving start rather than MrV's momentum conservation decoupling. JMO's.

[cloud camper]

I've convinced myself that a back emf elimination scheme is the only way a
wheel could work but could never figure out an implementation in a static gravitational field but this could be it.

Applying the scheme in a statorless environment seems to lead almost directly to a MT138 like mechanism that reverses direction every 180 deg.

And MT138 is the only MT that portrays or suggests a portion of a WORKING
mechanism as opposed to all the other duds.

Those impacts are so strongly depicted and although somewhat "lossy" seem to be the only way to capture and isolate the surplus KE. The impacts then act as a mechanical "diode" to prevent the captured energy from entering a back emf path.

So its definitely worth exploring IMHO.