Plying CF as pseudo-inertia to scam N3

[MrVibrating]

Look guys, i know the results are mind-blowing, but this is just the most basic mechanics possible.

A force is being applied between two inertias, while some other static force is applied to the net system.

We apply the inertial interaction while parallel to the external force vector, such that only one mass accelerates.

We then reset it when orthogonal to the external force vector, accelerating / decelerating both masses equally.

All displacements relative to the external force vector are zero-energy and momentum sums, because it's simply a closed-loop trajectory through a static field.

But because the external force effectively inverted the sign of the counter-momentum, the inertial interaction produced a net momentum of one sign, rather than equal-opposite cancelling momenta.

Resetting the masses whist horizontal to the external force shares this momentum gain equally between them.

So the net system of interacting inertias has been accelerated, purely by an internal expenditure of work.

If we accelerate the system five times on the trot this way, we arrive at a net system velocity in which the masses possess 125% more KE than the energy we spent accelerating them.

Clearly, if gravity is being used, then the system is not thermodynamically closed, and encompasses the Earth, which is momentarily falling upwards towards the non-accelerating mass, during each input stroke. That's what our momentum "gain" is doing to the environment. Work is being done by gravity, in causing Earth to fall upwards towards a mass that isn't accelerating back down to meet it, and that negative GPE - and its corresponding momentum - is our "gain", which we're basically dissipating to heat via 2LoT.

This is GCSE-grade physics, people.

I didn't even get GCSE physics. Some of you lot probably have ology's.

Sorry, i just feel like it's an uphill battle getting anyone to follow along? If i've glossed over anything that doesn't seem to add up, just ask? Happy to clarify anything..

[sleepy]

I think most of us have the concept now.Thanks for your patience.But I feel we've reached the point where we have two teams.One team feels like it's a winning and groundbreaking idea that will be a real game changer.The other team sees a design that has not addressed several issues,(i.e. the cost of firing whatever mech you use,the cost of retracting the weights and mech back into their pre-launch positions,and the fact that it only seems to work if not connected to a wheel and while in freefall.) I'm waiting to see a workable design,or a working sim, or ideally a real world trial of the concept. You've already come this far,openly sharing all you know about this concept.Instead of spending more of everyone's time arguing about the outcome,maybe we could all start trying to prove or disprove this with some real world builds.

[MrVibrating]

The concept is merely momentum gain, from an inertial interaction.

By "inertial interaction", i mean a force, and resulting mutual acceleration (or not!) between two free inertias.

The only difference here is that one or both of these inertias is also subject to gravitation, during one half of the full-cycle interaction (so either when the masses are mutually accelerating or braking against one another).

The resulting rises in momentum between the two inertias are effectively reactionless accelerations (RA's) and produce the same amount of momentum, for the same input energy, regardless of ambient system velocity.

Conversely, the standard energy value of momentum is given by KE=1/2mV^2.

So the energy cost of making momentum is fixed, regardless of speed.

But the energy value of that momentum is totally a function of speed.

So input and output energy terms have different, mutually-incompatible dimensions - their line integrals intersect at precisely 4 reactionless accelerations in series.

Hence below 4 RA's the system's under-unity, and above 4 (so 5 or more) it is over-unity.

In summary, 5 successive reactionless accelerations nets us a 25% discount on the energy cost of the resulting momentum.

So we can then cash-in that momentum for 125% of whatever we paid for it.

Or, after 8 RA's, 200% what we paid for it..

For example, using two 1 kg masses, each 9.81 kg-m/s of momentum costs us 96.23 Joules, and we make 8 successive purchases at that rate, so our net input energy is 8 * 96.23 J = 769.84 J.

For that input energy, we've raised 8 * 9.81 kg-m/s = 78.48 kg-m/s of momentum.

Therefore each 1 kg mass has 78.48 / 2 = 39.24 kg-m/s of momentum.

And per KE=1/2mV^2, 1 kg at 39.24 meters/sec has 769.88 J

Precisely our input energy...

..except we have two 1 kg masses... both at that speed...

So, we have 200% more energy than we spent.


What more could i possibly say to add further clarity?

So, using that last set of calcs, where we obtained 200% OU from '8 bangs per cycle', the net system of interacting masses ended up with 39.24 meters/sec of velocity.

Just out of curiosity, let's suppose these masses are traveling in an orbital trajectory, as in a vertical wheel.

Assuming "12 elles" radius is approx. equal to 7.2 meters radius, at 39.24 m/s the wheel would be rotating almost precisely 52 RPM.


Although this is using 1 kg weights - dunno what "about four pounds" would equate to in real money - remember tho that gravity is a uniform acceleration (so a feather and frozen chicken should fall at equal rate).

Still, any such correlations are purely circumstantial of course..

[MrVibrating]

I think most of us have the concept now.Thanks for your patience.But I feel we've reached the point where we have two teams.One team feels like it's a winning and groundbreaking idea that will be a real game changer.The other team sees a design that has not addressed several issues,(i.e. the cost of firing whatever mech you use,the cost of retracting the weights and mech back into their pre-launch positions,and the fact that it only seems to work if not connected to a wheel and while in freefall.) I'm waiting to see a workable design,or a working sim, or ideally a real world trial of the concept. You've already come this far,openly sharing all you know about this concept.Instead of spending more of everyone's time arguing about the outcome,maybe we could all start trying to prove or disprove this with some real world builds.

All addressed already, so can we go through your objections one by one?

1) "the cost of firing whatever mech you use"

- is precisely what i've devoted so much verbiage to - inertia is speed-invariant, so it always costs the same input energy to apply the mutual acceleration.

If a 1 second impulse of 2 G is applied between two 1 kg masses, then 96.23 Joules has been spent.

This input workload results in a 9.81 kg-m/s rise in net system momentum.


Please, does that answer your first question? I accept things like real-world friction, and non-linearity of Hooke's law for springs etc., but i'm trying to lay out the fundamental elements of an OU system, as cleanly as poss., and so ignoring losses to focus instead on the pure thermodynamics of the differing I/O energy terms. The optimal input energy is simply 9.81 J/kg-m/s, and set by gravity.



2) "the cost of retracting the weights and mech back into their pre-launch positions"

They collide, while orthogonal to gravity, ie. horizontally. We applied a force between them, causing only one to accelerate, so it's now traveling faster than the other one. So it can catch it up, and crash into it.

A basic elastic collision passively rectifies the momentum gain, sharing it equally between both masses, per N3.

So basically, there is no cost for this - it's already paid for.

With the two masses now at uniform net speed, we repeat the process and gain the same amount of momentum again, for the same input cost of 9.81 J/kg-m/s.

If we do that at least five times in a row, we gain 25% more energy than we've spent.

Does that answer your question re. this point?


3) "and the fact that it only seems to work if not connected to a wheel and while in freefall."


To be fair, i've demonstrated the principle with linear-linear interactions, linear-angular and angular-angular.

I've persisted with testing the linear-linear version because it's simply easier to follow the key details, of input vs output energies.

For the same reasons, i've been showing perfectly-idealised interactions, without losses, and with impractically-exaggerated displacements - just dragging out the action to highlight the evolving dynamics.

So everything i'm doing with these linear inertias can be fully-equivalently performed with angular-angular or angular-linear inertias, and perhaps even radial ones too.

I've stressed all these points repeatedly, and explained how i expect a complete series of such interaction can be coordinated in much smaller, segmented arcs of a 360° rotation, especially with regards to the angular-angular implementation.

So no, there is no intrinsic requirement for a pair of linear masses in freefall, and i've been at pains to stress this throughout, with accompanying demonstrations. Simply blipping a radial weighted lever with counter-torque while it's descending should be sufficient to render the effect; do it 5 times in a row and you should have sufficient CF to repay 125% of your PE.

In the latest update however, it appears logical to presume that the first four RA's can be substituted with any conventional acceleration, since both methods converge at identical results. Therefore, in principle we could just prime the system with that threshold amount of PE and immediately make a 125% KE profit from just a single RA, or 150% from two, 175% from three, 200% from four, 400% from 8 per cycle etc. etc.

I will test this prediction later, stay tuned.

Does that answer your final question? Development takes time, and i spend 60+ hours a week stuck to a motorcycle, so gis' a chance eh..

If you've understood the above answers then you know about as much as i do.

We're using gravity to cancel counter-momentum. This results in a non-zero sum, which can thus be consolidated over consecutive cycles via ordinary elastic collisions. The energy cost of raising momentum this way is constant, invariant of RPM. But the energy value of angular momentum is given by 1/2MoI*RPM^2, so is by definition RPM-dependent. Input and output energy fields thus have incompatible scaling dimensions, and thus the system cannot be thermodynamically closed.

In principle, any static force field could replace gravity here.

It does look like the system changes Earth's momentum state, if gravity is used this way.

It thus may have propulsion applications, too (which is totally hypothetical at this stage; one miracle at a time eh?).

That's all there is to it. It's all dead-simple, requiring nothing more than high-school math, just walk it thru one step at a time, and choosing whichever forms of inertia you're most comfortable working with - angular, linear, radial, umm... whatever else you can think of.

Obviously, angular-angular seems the simplest mechanical approach, but the brief forays so far made in exploring this option will be redundant anyway if the next set of results perform as expected.. we'll've solved the 'jump starting' challenge in one fell swoop, and hopefully thus be able to design a system in which each interaction will be immediately and independently OU in it's own right... with multiple such interactions per cycle.

Now that i've prattled on into the evening i'm gonna go get some eats... tune in later for the title bout between CoM and CoE...

[MrVibrating]

OK here's another RA cycles / efficiency breakdown, using gravity and two 1 kg masses. Something interesting falls out:

Input cost of momentum is 9.81 J/kg-m/s, regardless of number of cycles elapsed.

Output value of that momentum, on the other hand, evolves thusly..

Code: Select all

# of RA's:         momentum value in J/kg-m/s: 

        5              12.26
        6              14.71
        7              17.16
        8              19.62 (2 * 9.81)

Etc.

Energy doubles every eighth RA 'interval'...

...so we're apparently seeing an inherent correlation here with guess what, people?

FWIW, i heartily recommend "Music of the Spheres" by Jamie James - heavy going in places, but hugely informative.. but if you know a little about the ancient historical traditions underlying the Western tonal system and its ties to ecclesiastical and pre-christian metaphysical cosmogonies, it seems unlikely this parallel would've escaped JB's attention.. efficiency basically doubles across an 'octave', itself a long-established metaphor for the passage to heaven, beyond the outermost sphere of fixed stars... the reference frame of our runaway momentum..

With full deference to Oystein's work on this subject, one can appreciate the kinds of classical philospophical and religious implications in this apparent seam of symmetry might've evoked or educed.. It basically would've played straight into the pre-enlightenment 'Great Chain of Being' cosmogony that forwent what would become the Masonic tradition, all matters of higher thought representing the divine order, and interconnecting the 'god' figure, with its roots in Plato's demiurge..

So perhaps this correlation lent conviction and context to his continued interests in music and organcraft.. type stuff..?

Who knows, esoteric claptrap eh ;P

[rlortie]

sleepy wrote:

Instead of spending more of everyone's time arguing about the outcome,maybe we could all start trying to prove or disprove this with some real world builds.

Good point! Please keep me advised as to who these real builders are and exactly what it is they are supposed to build. I consider myself a builder, but must admit, I am at a complete loss with this one.

It appears that the number of so-called "real-builders" on this forum has somewhat diminished over the last few years due to attrition or giving up. Sorry to say it, but there are some designs that paper plates and tongue depressors simply cannot justify.

A moderately equipped builder with proper tooling, skills, materials, and labor is not going to attempt a build without seeing more conclusive proof and an idea of design leaves them with questionable doubt.

Show me a design scribbled on a napkin, tell me how you think it should work using mechanical terms. Then and maybe then you will catch my attention regarding a build.

Ralph

[MrVibrating]

This is precisely why i say it's now an engineering challenge.

We need a minimally-complex design that can coordinate this sequence of conditions.

But it's too soon to begin such considerations, with new realisations falling into place every day or so.

Like i keep saying, angular-angular seems the way to go for ease of design and build. Small bites of momentum / angle. Dropping an expanding scissorjack would be a clumsy and oafish approach, cargo-cult engineering the concept. I mean, it could work, according to the maths, but it'd be a thundering mechanical monstrosity you wouldn't wanna be eating your lunch next to. JB intimated that optimally-elegant solutions are possible, and we'll be led to them the same way he was... through careful consideration and compromise, following the maths, and the momentum.

I've laid out the elements of a rudimentary thermodynamic cycle. The 'fuel' for an engine that hasn't existed for 300 years. But we know it did exist, and maybe now, that it can again.

So i don't personally plan on even beginning the engine design phase yet. I'm still characterising the symmetry break and assessing its potential.

So far, we're looking at something like a 7.2 meter diameter wheel, containing say 8 pairs of weights if we were going the steam-punk route using linear-linear RA's, so at 1 kg each that's 16 kg internal weights, plus at least half that much mass again to contain and coordinate them, plus maybe 50% more mass for some kind of CF feedback system, so a good 50 kg or so already, at 200% OU per cycle outputting around 770 J per cycle excess energy, at 52 RPM = 4 kJ / min / 60 = 667 Watts / 50 kg = 13.34 W/kg power density.

So yeah, the prospects ain't too shabby, even if the wife won't want it in the dining room. Hopefully we can reduce it to something a bit more elegant you can take out of the garage / shed / 'log cabin'.

[MrVibrating]

OK here's another RA cycles / efficiency breakdown, using gravity and two 1 kg masses. Something interesting falls out:

Input cost of momentum is 9.81 J/kg-m/s, regardless of number of cycles elapsed.

Output value of that momentum, on the other hand, evolves thusly..

Code: Select all

# of RA's:         momentum value in J/kg-m/s: 

        5              12.26
        6              14.71
        7              17.16
        8              19.62 (2 * 9.81)

Etc.

Energy doubles every eighth RA 'interval'...

...so we're apparently seeing an inherent correlation here with guess what, people?

FWIW, i heartily recommend "Music of the Spheres" by Jamie James - heavy going in places, but hugely informative.. but if you know a little about the ancient historical traditions underlying the Western tonal system and its ties to ecclesiastical and pre-christian metaphysical cosmogonies, it seems unlikely this parallel would've escaped JB's attention.. efficiency basically doubles across an 'octave', itself a long-established metaphor for the passage to heaven, beyond the outermost sphere of fixed stars... the reference frame of our runaway momentum..

With full deference to Oystein's work on this subject, one can appreciate the kinds of classical philospophical and religious implications in this apparent seam of symmetry might've evoked or educed.. It basically would've played straight into the pre-enlightenment 'Great Chain of Being' cosmogony that forwent what would become the Masonic tradition, all matters of higher thought representing the divine order, and interconnecting the 'god' figure, with its roots in Plato's demiurge..

So perhaps this correlation lent conviction and context to his continued interests in music and organcraft.. type stuff..?

Who knows, esoteric claptrap eh ;P

Hmm, good candidate for "Jacob's ladder" right there..?


From Wiki:

Jacob's Ladder (Hebrew: Sulam Yaakov סולם יעקב) is the colloquial name for a connection between the earth and heaven that the biblical Patriarch Jacob dreams about during his flight from his brother Esau, as described in the Book of Genesis.

..

So the base of the ladder represents the Earthly realm, where the value of the vis viva is equal the value of gravitation.

At the perfect fifth - the halfway point between heaven and earth - the celestial vis viva flows forth. Five is also prime, there are five platonic solids etc. etc.

At the ladder top, the octave, representing the heavenly realm, the fundamental, the motive value of the vis viva is precisely twice its earthly value of gravitation.

LOL when all this is over it'll be fun to pick through his words again with the full benefit of hindsight..

[Art]

Hi Dwayne ,

That portion of the video would be really neat to watch run backwards !

Could that be done ?

Hey Art,

Is this what you wanted? I reversed the gif and then used an online optimization program to reduce the file size some. It was still too large to upload to the site, so I uploaded it to imgur.com and am hotlinking it.

---------

Yes , perfect Dwayne , -thanks .

Now to do a "Joanie Mitchel" on it (look at life from both sides) , - I'm going to stand on my head and imagine that the two blokes in the clip are standing on their's ! :)

What the Teufel ! - Gravity is still working Downwards !

[MrVibrating]

So if this goes wild on teh interwebz - a simple cut-out design anyone can follow - and eventually becomes the preeminent energy source driving a surging global economy, because of the fact we're diurnal and use more energy during the day, we'll be exerting an overall centripetal force upon Earth, vectored towards the Sun, and varying in strength throughout the day.

Additionally there'll likely be a net force vertical to the orbital plane, depending on which hemisphere has higher usage.

So a varying CP force is going to de-stabilise our solar orbit, making it more eliptical; narrowing the radius causes a corresponding acceleration, conserving momentum, followed by deceleration as the orbit widens..

Assuming no significant net torque is applied, day lengths would stay the same, but the seasons will stretch and compress with the increasingly-eliptical solar orbit.

The stability of the Earth-Moon system will be broken, which in turn will break tidal locking, causing increased geothermal activity in both bodies.



....



The more i think about it, the more plausible it seems that most of the obvious "clues" JB left were not so much instructional, as signatory. Especially the Toys Page, the Kassel engravings, and many of the hints in MT.. He hasn't so much left a trail of evidence showing us how to retrace his footsteps, as left his signature in places that only someone who'd already found his secrets would recognise. His hidden legacy is the IP claim, not build instructions.

I've noted for years, here and on JC's forum, how the number 5 crops up in certain solutions to asymmetric inertial interactions, but you first have to understand precisely its significance in this particular kind of system, before items 'A' and 'B' on the Toys Page finally make any coherent sense.

Likewise, the Kassel engravings are Heath-Robinson-esque caricatures of the core concept, as are later MT woodcuts. Interacting angular and linear inertias, in otherwise pointless closed chained sequences..

He must've assumed it was only a matter of time - what with the accelerating march of science and reason - before others independently rediscovered the trick.. so banked his IP claim - and ultimate exoneration of his name, honour and accomplishment - upon that seemingly inevitable eventuality..

Bad call, unfortunately, since the most lasting legacy of the enlightenment luminaries he relied upon as witnesses laid the very foundations of the laws of conservation of energy and momentum by which future generations would dismiss the possibility without so much as a shrug... It's thanks to the life works of Leibniz, Wolffe and S' Gravesande et al that we all 'knew' Bessler must've been a shyster... even though they all knew he wasn't..

And so no one ever did rediscover it. Our steam engines morphed into IC engines and turbines and we dazzled ourselves with the new EM and then quantum and nuclear.. we built rockets and went to the moon, then transistors and modern IT.. to be fair, you'd have to be nuts to turn your attention away from all those goings on, to take another look at this..

Ever the optimist, he just seriously underestimated the depths of human stupidity. LOL you've gotta admit tho, we're pretty fucking stupid eh?

I mean i've been talking about this symmetry break for years. I knew the number 5 may have something to do with it. I knew it had to be an inertial interaction, that was somehow made asymmetric by a gravity field. I knew you could use gravity to reverse the sign of counter-momentum. I knew "OU" means that I/O energy fields have to have different scaling dimensions WRT time. For years and years. I didn't just know i was warm, or even that it was right under my nose.. i've literally been describing the key details of it right here and on JC's forum, practically since i began this mission, what 4 years ago now? I honestly thought i could crack it in a year, but RL.. and human stupidity. It's taken me this long just to fit the pieces i already had together.. and they're basically all labelled to only fit one way.. that's how dumb i am. Slow. On.

The.


Uptake.







Duh.

[Grimer]

So if this goes wild on the interwebz - a simple cut-out design anyone can follow - and eventually becomes the pre-eminent energy source driving a surging global economy, because of the fact we're diurnal and use more energy during the day, we'll be exerting an overall centripetal force upon Earth, vectored towards the Sun, and varying in strength throughout the day.

Additionally there'll likely be a net force vertical to the orbital plane, depending on which hemisphere has higher usage.

So a varying CP force is going to de-stabilise our solar orbit, making it more eliptical; narrowing the radius causes a corresponding acceleration, conserving momentum, followed by deceleration as the orbit widens..

Assuming no significant net torque is applied, day lengths would stay the same, but the seasons will stretch and compress with the increasingly-eliptical solar orbit.

The stability of the Earth-Moon system will be broken, which in turn will break tidal locking, causing increased geothermal activity in both bodies.
....

The more I think about it, the more plausible it seems that most of the obvious "clues" JB left were not so much instructional, as signatory. Especially the Toys Page, the Kassel engravings, and many of the hints in MT.. He hasn't so much left a trail of evidence showing us how to retrace his footsteps, as left his signature in places that only someone who'd already found his secrets would recognise. His hidden legacy is the IP claim, not build instructions.

I've noted for years, here and on JC's forum, how the number 5 crops up in certain solutions to asymmetric inertial interactions, but you first have to understand precisely its significance in this particular kind of system, before items 'A' and 'B' on the Toys Page finally make any coherent sense.

Likewise, the Kassel engravings are Heath-Robinson-esque caricatures of the core concept, as are later MT woodcuts. Interacting angular and linear inertias, in otherwise pointless closed chained sequences..

He must've assumed it was only a matter of time - what with the accelerating march of science and reason - before others independently rediscovered the trick.. so banked his IP claim - and ultimate exoneration of his name, honour and accomplishment - upon that seemingly inevitable eventuality..

Bad call, unfortunately, since the most lasting legacy of the enlightenment luminaries he relied upon as witnesses laid the very foundations of the laws of conservation of energy and momentum by which future generations would dismiss the possibility without so much as a shrug... It's thanks to the life works of Leibniz, Wolffe and S' Gravesande et al that we all 'knew' Bessler must've been a shyster... even though they all knew he wasn't..

And so no one ever did rediscover it. Our steam engines morphed into IC engines and turbines and we dazzled ourselves with the new EM and then quantum and nuclear.. we built rockets and went to the moon, then transistors and modern IT.. to be fair, you'd have to be nuts to turn your attention away from all those goings on, to take another look at this..

Ever the optimist, he just seriously underestimated the depths of human stupidity. LOL you've gotta admit tho, we're pretty fucking stupid eh?

I mean i've been talking about this symmetry break for years. I knew the number 5 may have something to do with it. I knew it had to be an inertial interaction, that was somehow made asymmetric by a gravity field. I knew you could use gravity to reverse the sign of counter-momentum. I knew "OU" means that I/O energy fields have to have different scaling dimensions WRT time. For years and years. I didn't just know i was warm, or even that it was right under my nose.. i've literally been describing the key details of it right here and on JC's forum, practically since i began this mission, what 4 years ago now? I honestly thought i could crack it in a year, but RL.. and human stupidity. It's taken me this long just to fit the pieces i already had together.. and they're basically all labelled to only fit one way.. that's how dumb i am. Slow. On.

The.

Uptake.

Duh.

We are indeed stupid, incredibly stupid - and when you find out just how stupid we have been you'll be shocked I tell you. Shocked! :-)

You are right about the importance of the earth's reaction inertia, Mr Vibe. Not only reaction to downward force but also to rotation inertia in the vertical and horizontal plane. This is the key to the Ventomobil being able to travel into the wind and also the key to a offset gyro being able to travel up against the gravitational wind.

But it is not necessary to go as far as that to unmask the culprit. A logical analysis of that most familiar of children's toys, the simple yo-yo , reveals all. More specifically it reveals how the third derivative (Force x time) amplifies the energy of a body falling under the action of Newtonian Gravity (NG).

I'll prepare a few diagrams tomorrow and continue in the Community Buzz thread:
Linear, Rotational and Precessional KE - A physical example

Mind you, with what I have revealed above the more competent members
and lurkers should be able to work things out for themselves.

I'll give you some more clues. :-)

What happens to the acceleration toward its centre (the 2nd derivative) of the yo-yo.
Does it remain constant or does it increase (3rd derivative)

What is the difference between two yo-yos having the same body but different diameters of axle?

Which takes longer to reach the ground. The yo-yo with the small diameter axle or the yo-yo with the large diameter axle?

Therefore, for which yo-yo is the Force x time at the anchor point the greater?

So which yo-yo has the most rotational energy when it reaches the ground?

But how can they possibly be different?

The change in Newtonian potential energy is the same.

The force on the pivot hasn't moved so no Force x distance energy has been put into the system.

[MrVibrating]

So here's that test i said i'd do yesterday, with a roundup of the results:

The following interaction is identical to previous runs, except the masses now begin with momentum and KE equal to the energy asymmetry's 'unity threshold'; with precisely 192.47220 Joules and 19.63 kg-m/s of momentum on each 1 kg mass, it makes no mathematical nor physical difference whether the system was accelerated to this state by a single conventional interaction, or four discrete reactionless accelerations at 96.17 J per 9.80665 kg-m/s.

So the clear implication is that we can eliminate the first four RA's entirely, substituting their net effect with a conventional acceleration, while still gaining the full benefit of a 'fifth' RA, instead applied as a first, directly following a regular N3-compliant acceleration.

As before, the total change in energy and momentum corresponding to the gravitational interaction is deducted, essentially 'repaying' it, leaving only the change in energy and momentum caused by the internally-applied force.

Let's proceed then:






Lower mass GPE change:
----------------------


Initial height = -0.2 meters

Final height = -29.62665 m

Total drop = -29.42665 m


GMH = 9.80665 m/s^2 * 1 kg * 29.42665 m = 288.57685 J

So gravity accelerated the lower 1 kg mass with its 1 G acceleration over 29.4 meters, raising its KE by 288.5 Joules.


-------



Upper mass GPE change:
----------------------


Initial height = 0.2 m

Final height = -19.42 m

Total drop = -19.62 m

GMH = 9.80665 m/s^2 * 1 kg * 19.62 m = 192.40647 J

However, the upper mass was not accelerated by this GPE output it incurred - its velocity remains constant throughout the interaction. Instead, this acceleration was applied to the lower mass, and so that is where we must deduct this KE and its corresponding momentum.


Total GPE-to-KE expressed in lower mass thus = 288.57685 + 192.40647 = 480.98332 J




-------





Total rise in momentum (P = mV) from GPE:
--------------------------------


Since the momentum of the upper mass remains constant, only the lower mass has been accelerated, either by gravity, or the mutually-applied force, each of which applied exactly 1 G over exactly the same drop height.

Initial P = 19.62 kg-m/s on each mass, so 39.24 kg-m/s

Final P = upper mass still has 19.62 kg-m/s, lower mass has 39.2333 kg-m/s, an increase of 19.6133 kg-m/s, half of which came from GPE, with the other half applied by the mutually-applied force... So 19.6133 divided by two equals a perfect 9.80665 kg-m/s rise in momentum from each of those two forces.

So we have precisely the right amount of momentum, to five significant digits. The conversion of GPE to KE caused a corresponding 9.80665 kg-m/s rise in momentum, and the internally-applied force raised it by a further 9.80665 kg-m/s.


You can appreciate at this stage how keeping everything optimal and idealised makes delineating the situation easier..



----
Obviously, such accuracy is not required in order to simply access the gradient, since any degree of cancellation of counter-momentum - however messily achieved - exploits this same cost/benefit ratio, and so provided that gain is efficiently harvested and transmitted back to 'blipping' a descending mass with counter-torque against gravity and the wheel's forwards angular inertia, an RKE gain is available on the wheel after five or more such blips, which may be collected via a GPE or CF/CP workload.
----



But back to the title bout; we can now deduct the KE and momentum that was introduced by the drop against gravity, leaving us with just the rise in KE and momentum corresponding to the mutually-applied force:


Initial system KE = 192.47220 J on each mass, so 384.9444 J total.

Final system KE = 192.4720 remains on the upper mass, and the lower one has risen to 769.62591 J, so 962.09791 J total.

Total rise in KE thus = 962.09791 - 384.9444 = 577.15351 J.

From this, we subtract the total GPE contribution of 480.98332 J, leaving us 96.17019 J remaining, which must've come from the mutually-applied acceleration.


We also need to subtract the 9.80665 kg-m/s of momentum that came from the GPE interaction:

We maintained 19.62 kg-m/s on the upper mass, and increased the lower one by 39.2333 - 19.62 = 19.6133 kg-m/s, 50% (9.80665 kg-m/s) of which came from GPE, so the net rise in momentum from the mutually-applied force is also 9.80665 kg-m/s.

Hence after repaying the momentum and GPE contributed by GPE, we're back to our initial starting conditions, plus 9.80665 kg-m/s of momentum, for which we've paid 96.17 Joules.

Each mass initially had 19.62 kg-m/s of momentum. We've raised another 9.80665 via the mutually-applied force, which has nonetheless only accelerated one of these inertias, and so all of it is of one sign.

A perfectly elastic collision between them will equalise that momentum gain between them. So, 9.80665 / 2 = 4.903325 kg-m/s added to each mass's initial momentum of 19.62 kg-m/s, equals 24.523325 kg-m/s on each.

Per KE=1/2m*V^2, at 24.523325 meters per second, 1 kg has 300.696734527813 Joules of KE.

We have that on each mass, rounding to 601.3934 J total KE.

We began with 384.9444 J total KE.

To this we added, and then subtracted, 480.98332 J of GPE, and its associated 9.80665 kg-m/s of momentum.

At the same time, we also applied a 96.17 J internal impulse, raising another 9.80665 kg-m/s of momentum, which we have not deducted, but instead divided evenly between the two 1 kg masses.

Net input energy is thus 384.9444 + 96.17 = 481.1144 Joules.

Net system energy however is 601.3934 Joules!

601.3934 - 481.1144 = 120.279 J difference.

Of that, we input precisely 96.17 J.

120.279 - 96.17 = 24.109 J OU.

120.279 / 96.17 = 1.250x OU.




-------




Discussion:
___________



While mathematically a foregone conclusion, the results are nonetheless highly encouraging. We have confirmed the hypothesis, the first 4 RA's are basically redundant; a machine incorporating them could still be viable, but needs a longer 'bump start' to cross the I/O energy unity threshold. Eliminating this load upon the system means we can immediately step across that boundary condition in one seamless action, aiming for a design that establishes multiple discrete OU interactions per cycle, from the very first interaction at a standing start.

Again, the above interaction is idealised for the purposes of comprehension and analysis of the gain principle.. not for mechanical simplicity in a motor design.

For this, we'll want to switch to angular-angular or angular-linear inertias, with much smaller relative displacements of more manageable angular increments per RA.

For anyone trying to digest this and progress to the design phase, you're basically looking to design a machine which can firstly generate an asymmetric distribution of momentum from an inertial interaction skewed by a static force field, which could be gravity, magnetic force, centrifugal force or whatever else you can get away with. You can do this with just two moving parts via a radial weighted lever arm - which thus has properties of both angular inertia, and weight - vs an angular inertia (such as that of the wheel body) which is not subject to gravitation (or at least, not equally subject - remember that the overlap margins here are entirely flexible, perfect cancellation of counter-momentum is not a prerequisite for success, only the net I/O energy integrals matter).

So there's now two potential routes to pursue to the finish line:

- a machine that needs bump-starting past its unity threshold of 4 RA's

This might be a bit easier to design and build, but you need at least 5 RA's before it can self-perpetuate. Peak speed and power however is likely to benefit from the added simplicity..

- a machine which begins immediately OU

This seems to imply a slightly more complicated mechanism, and has a preferential running speed predetermined by its unity threshold PE store, but can immediately begin self-perpetuation. Peak power density is compromised for the benefit of startup ease and operating stability / predictability.

So at this point you know about as much about the design requirements as i do. We need a machine that can cause the momentum asymmetry, rectify and thus accumulate it, and so resulting in an RKE gain that can be harvested via a GPE or CF/CP workload, which in turn drives the momentum asymmetry in a closed feedback loop. All i can tell you at this stage is that such machines are physically possible - the entire process is fully dependent upon CoM and CoE applying exactly as they're supposed to.

On that count, however, we're drawn to the perplexing conclusion that if both CoM and CoE are valid, then either both are thus invalid - and there can be no paradoxes - or else we have a classical mechanical interaction relying on both that nonetheless cannot be thermodynamically closed. Therefore the system is, albeit unexpectedly, quite evidently open, and momentum and energy are being drawn from some other conserved source.

We have speculated that the unreciprocated upwards gravitational acceleration of the Earth towards the inertially-suspended weight is also a key component of this open system, a prediction wich can also be readily tested with maths and simulation, and which in turn may lead to an EM implementation that insulates the Earth from the process, while also clarifying the potential for any propulsion application.

For now, though, the challenge is to find the simplest possible mechanical design that can automate this process... to wit, a Bessler wheel..!

I hope we can all continue to collaborate openly, as we have a profound obligation to ensure any design that goes wild is as insulated as possible from Earth, assuming such safeguards are even possible..

To that end, i'm considering moving the project to a dedicated sub-forum for any and all members wishing to join in the final push; the objective being to keep any exciting but unsafe designs away from small fingers, lest one ends up in a YT video..

As a potential incentive, a group collaboration might reasonably be granted IP rights on any safe optimum solution, with an equal share of whatever the rewards, but also the associated responsibilities..

Obvioushly, if you all think i'm talking gibberish then this proposal's gonna get a luke-warm reception, but at least if i am talking shite there'll be no harm done.. Cos if i'm not, then we all need to be looking beyond the ends of our dicks here..

[MrVibrating]

@ Frank - interesting ideas mate.

In the current scheme, our gain margin is due to the output energy field being subject to the additional V^2 time derivative corresponding to a 'counter-acceleration' that hasn't happened, thus obviating its reciprocal in the input energy field.

As i keep stressing tho, that counter-acceleration has been gravitationally transmitted to Earth, which has momentarily accelerated upwards towards a mass that hasn't accelerated back towards it.

So on the face of it, it looks like we're creating energy and momentum ex nihilo, purely conjuring them from clever arithmetic.

But that conclusion is clearly contradictory with the very terms the exploit depends upon, in which both CoM and CoE apply entirely consistently within the contexts of their respective frames of reference.

Hence it is founded only in myopic hubris, perhaps only further confounded by the confirmation bias of greed.

I suspect Bessler recognised this also. It may have been partly why he was content to sell it, kit and caboodle, to walk away and wash his hands of it, salving his conscience with the presumption its environmental impact would be negligible.

Today humanity is drawing something like 110,00 terawatt-hours. If this load were placed upon gravity-assisted Bessler wheels, then any environmental fallout is unlikely to remain negligible for long.

Moreover if it were to fuel some kind of economic boom or rapid increase in that net power draw, that fallout could accumulate significantly faster.

There's no free lunch, no magic... no actions without consequences! We need to be real careful about betting our fortunes on a game of billiards we can't win..

[Fletcher]

MrV .. I am trying to step back and visualize some type of simple thought experiment that could prove your N3 break and a surplus of mv and KE by default. Then perhaps that thought experiment could translate into a sim and then real world build as POP ?

I realize that you say it takes either 5 Reactionless Accelerations (RA's) to go from accumulated UU to OU by your reckoning. Why not go for 6 and have internal losses well and truly covered ?

Anyways, the point being that if you assume the expanding Jack is massless it makes it easier to isolate and simplify. BTW this can pretty much be done in a sim by using massless rods as connections between small nodes (of very little mass). Also you don't need large numbers of cross segments in the Jack. Any linear advantage (accelerations etc) can be duplicated by just two segments, a small one for the Effort and a large dimensions one for the Load. The results are the same as having multiple segments and duplicate what a normal multi-segment Jack does.

To continue .. usually if you can visualize a rotary system for a design then there is usually also a reciprocating / oscillating variant you could come up with.

For the thought experiment what about 2 systems on a see-saw. One Jack extends and extra mv and KE is generated. At the same time the opposite mech on the otherside of the see-saw is contracted and reset. Then they reverse actions. IOW's they pump and reset alternatively.

If there is a surplus of mv and KE then one side of the see-saw should be able to reset the other, should it not ? Does this get us any closer to a POP concept ?

[MrVibrating]

Just noticed, "MT 143" seems to be demonstrating this principle:



..interacting angular inertias, with a vertical component provided by the Roberval.

Doesn't look like it can be close-looped either, but as i say, this concept seems to provide a consistent context for at least some of his more bizarre doodles..