Plying CF as pseudo-inertia to scam N3

[MrVibrating]

At work so gotta be brief, but wanna thank Wayne for his scrutiny..

However all we need to accomplish is equalising the velocity between the momenta, accepting all corresponding energy decrease and losses. Even sacrificing in excess of 50% loss each time, we simply double the number of RA's to OU.

[sleepy]

Mr.V.,
I have followed this thread with great interest,due to it's splendidly simple but oh-so-out-of the box thinking.I feel like we're getting so far ahead of ourselves.I am looking to you to guide some real world testing,since it is your concept.So far we have absolutely zero proof that any mechanical device or combo of devices can produce the reaction you are looking for.If you feel as though you have a clear picture in your mind of how the basis of this concept can be accomplished,maybe you could illustrate it for us.That way while you are busy thinking,some others could be testing.We could cover so much more ground that way.I feel that we are all missing some very basic problems inherent with this design that will render it non-do-able.I know you are light years ahead with your thinking,but some poor sap still has to build it.The "grunt work" it's called.Throw us a bone on what you would do to get started.

[cloud camper]

It's tough being the messiah!

Just look what happened to JC.

But even JC was smart enough not to claim a symmetry break.

That would have gotten him into some real trouble!

[Furcurequs]

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..

I believe the two sections above that I've made bold and red are in conflict. In the upper section you basically acknowledge that the lower mass possesses the kinetic energy that was gained due to the descent of the upper mass in the gravitational field, and yet you don't pay this back in your calculations in the lower section.

It appears that the contribution of the kinetic energy and of the momentum that came from the GPE to KE conversion is much greater than the 50% that you claim there. I've not yet run the numbers, but I suspect that correcting this error will bring them in line with energy conservation.

If you apply brakes to maintain a constant speed while going down a hill instead of allowing acceleration down the hill due to the force of gravity, you will not have the energy to get back up the next hill. Like it or not, some of the energy that ends up in the lower mass came from putting the brakes on the upper mass and that energy has to be repaid in re-lifting the upper mass.

This is what I had originally pointed out, but I hadn't actually seen the error in your math at the time.

Dwayne

[MrVibrating]

It's not energy from nowhere. It's energy from the Beta-atmosphere, the atmosphere that holds materials together.

Well, obviously.

That's obviously all i meant.

[MrVibrating]

So this has been bugging me all day... how the hell could the magic number be 10? It can't also be ten if it's five. The guy's crazy, he's talking nuts.. think about it - five wounds of Jesus, Five Pillars of Islam, the five faces of Shiva, Red 5 standing by, Number Five is alive..

Besides, my Jacob's ladder / Pythagorean octave theory would be dashed, the Toys page would no longer make sense. I mean not that we should care too much about Bessler clues at this stage - Dwayne's suggestions wouldn't close the asymmetry, it'd just transpose it up an octave, doubling the number of reactionless accelerations needed to hit unity, to eight. Nine would be 117.5% OU, ten would bring us back to 125% OU. 16 to 200% OU, etc. But then why would JB have kept banging on about five? There can't be more than one symmetry break in classical physics, surely?

So something has to be wrong with his analysis, or else my understanding of it..

Thinking it through, it seems he's intepreting "elasticity" with regard to dissipative losses, whereas i'm using it in the context of momentum conservation - ie. a fully-elastic collision conserves momentum, so does not violate N3.

So when i talk about equalising the momentum via an ordinary N3-compliant interaction, that's what i mean.

If you go back and check that last set of calcs, i averaged the momentum difference and then calculated the KE's independently as a function of half mass times speed squared. So the dissipative loss that would've occured had that second interaction actually been simulated is already accounted for.

So the method i'm using seems perfectly valid, and the magic number remains five.

Similarly, his previous contention was that, as i'd already deducted the KE and momentum corresponding to the GPE output, there would no longer be enough KE and momentum to re-raise the mass.

Duh.

Just the casual illogic of it had my head in a twist all day..

I mean i specifically deducted the P and KE corresponding to the GPE interaction to produce the same net effect as relifting it, in order to leave only the P and KE corresponding to the inertial interaction - obviously, to focus in on the specific area of interest.

So it looks to me like the stupid isn't me here, on either occassion..

I am stupid - hopefully not irredeemably so - i probably have made stupid mistakes here, and will again. I fully admit the maths may need corrections, but as i say, the broad strokes seem to be there.

Neither of his attempts on this so far have even got rid of the OU.. they just shifted the goalposts slightly..

Albeit with a slightly arsey tone. But that's cool, i know i'm irritating as fuck.


If people really wanna get all scienticious with the peer review (which is great, of course), perhaps a good start would be independently trying to reproduce these results via the described principles, using your own methods?

You obviously all get the principle by now - generate a momentum asymmetry via a gravitationally-augmented inertial interaction, consolidate and accumulate it over successive cycles, keeping track of how much energy you're spending vs the energy value of your rising momentum. That's it. Should be a breeze for Dwayne, and various others here.

But please don't complain that i'm asking you to do my work for me, or that it's my job to prove it to you - you can see perfectly well what i'm doing, so if you feel compelled to critique it there's no substitute for a basic replication attempt. What better way to show the weaknesses of my approach..

[Furcurequs]

This was an accidental double post. Don't know what happened. Meant to edit the previous post.

[Silvertiger]

Just a quick observation here...I think that inevitably what happens, when people start attempting to think outside the box, that it is easy to be completely unaware that just such a process often leads to creating a separate box, one so tiny and far away that nothing seems to make sense when trying to tie it somehow to the original box that they got away from to begin with. One little thing goes wrong or is in disagreement with something else, and this leads to an even tinier portion of the box that branches off into conjecture and assumptions that simply MUST be fact. This is where "either/or" statements tend to become self-limiting and ultimately destructive.

[MrVibrating]

I believe the two sections above that I've made bold and red are in conflict. In the upper section you basically acknowledge that the lower mass possesses the kinetic energy that was gained due to the descent of the upper mass in the gravitational field, and yet you don't pay this back in your calculations in the lower section.

I believe you're mistaken mate - i calculated the combined GPE output - ie. that of both masses, but combined in the motion of the lower mass - as 480 J, and deducted this from the total to leave only the energy input via the inertial interaction.

Remember, both it and gravity are applying a 1 G acceleration to the lower mass, in the same direction, so it accelerates downwards at 2 G.

Thus after time T it has received energy from both sources, one a function of G*M*H (480 J), the other a function of F*d (96 J).

Both energy sources have contributed equal momentum, since a 1 G acceleration applied to a 1 kg mass for 1 second accelerates it to 9.81 meters a second, and since P=mV, at 9.81 m/s, 1 kg has 9.81 kg-m/s.

Since both forces applied 1 G, both have contributed half of the 19.62 kg-m/s rise.

So after deducting the 480 J GPE and corresponding 9.81 kg-m/s of momentum, the remaining 9.81 kg-m/s and 96 J of KE must've come from the energy supplied to the inertial interaction.. it's that simple!

More to the point, we're left with precisely the right amount of momentum and energy.. it's just that it's unidirectional, not self-cancelling.

This is what the gain's calculated from - that non-cancelling net momentum. It can be accumulated over successive cycles, causing a divergent inertial frame and consequent I/O energy disunity.

It appears that the contribution of the kinetic energy and of the momentum that came from the GPE to KE conversion is much greater than the 50% that you claim there. I've not yet run the numbers, but I suspect that correcting this error will bring them in line with energy conservation.

LOL you're invoking free energy from nowhere my friend. GPE = GMH. It cannot produce an excess of KE or momentum!

Please though, if you can find errors, let's discuss them..

If you apply brakes to maintain a constant speed while going down a hill instead of allowing acceleration down the hill due to the force of gravity, you will not have the energy to get back up the next hill. Like it or not, energy that ends up in the lower mass came from putting the brakes on the upper mass and that energy has to be repaid in re-lifting the upper mass.

It's bloody done mate! It's right there in the 480 J! Read it again, or just re-calculate the whole scenario in your own terms, as you say, this is basic stuff.

This is what I had originally pointed out, but I hadn't actually seen the error in your math at the time.

Dwayne

I'm happy to clarify everything a hundred times if needbe, but i'm not sure what you're reading right now is what i'm writing..

Think about it - if i hadn't subtracted all of the GPE then there would have to be more than 96 J and 9.81 kg-m/s remaining, surely? Yet that's precisely the energy cost of the amount of work performed by the inertial interaction! We've paid input energy equal to the cost of accelerating 2 kg by 9.81 m/s (per KE=1/2mV^2, 96.2 J), but 1 kg of that (the upper mass) was also counter-accelerated by gravity, so only the lower one was actually accelerated, either by gravity or the applied force. Both input 9.81 kg-m/s, so subtracting that much from the GPE output leaves precisely that much remaining.

Mate - and i'm sorry for missing the 'D' off your name (eek awkward) - yes it's a crappy offering, not least given the implications, but with the time i have available it's the best i've got so far. It looks like we've found JB's symmetry break, the maths, while evidently not as easy as they might be to follow, are pretty much there, you understand what i'm doing or at least attempting, if you can find any glaring issues, fantastic, but so far i'm struggling to find merit in your objections..

[MrVibrating]

..or to put it another way, of the 96.2 J we're paying as a constant, speed-invariant cost for each 9.81 kg-m/s of momentum, half of that energy (48.1 J) is not being spent on the system.

Think about it - the 9.81 kg-m/s of momentum that the inertial interaction induces on the lower mass is only worth 48.1 J, per KE=1/2mV^2.

Yet that's all the momentum we've raised, from a 96.2 J input...!


So what did the other 48.1 J get spent on then? Where's its corresponding 9.81 kg-m/s of momentum that we're paying for..?

...we pushed the upper mass upwards at the same rate the Earth was pulling it downwards...

In other words, of the 96 J we spend each cycle, 48 J raises 9.81 kg-m/s of internal momentum...

...the other 48 J raising an equal 9.81 kg-m/s in the Earth...!

There is no question a running Bessler wheel is imparting momentum to Earth!

It's basic physics!

Please, ANYONE, show me i'm wrong.??? :(

[Silvertiger]

I think my post got buried by a book lol. Just a quick observation here....again...I think that inevitably what happens, when people start attempting to think outside the box, that it is easy to be completely unaware that just such a process often leads to creating a separate box, one so tiny and far away that nothing seems to make sense when trying to tie it somehow to the original box that they got away from to begin with. One little thing goes wrong or is in disagreement with something else, and this leads to an even tinier portion of the box that branches off into conjecture and assumptions that simply MUST be fact. This is where "either/or" statements tend to become self-limiting and ultimately destructive.

People make far too many assumptions. How about raising some important questions for the process of elimination?

1. As an alchemist, could Bessler have possibly used magnets in some way or form?
2. Could he have used a material and/or form that taps a source of energy from the earth OTHER than gravity?
3. Was he at all aware of sympathetic frequencies and harmonics for the application of amplification and gain?

I myself do not know, as he only hints at what he did and did not do and gave limited descriptions of this. Nikola Tesla proved that there are other sources of energy that can be tapped depending on the material (Bessler's form/essence) used, and the potential difference that can be exploited and utilized.

You've made a box whereby the only possibility is an N3 bypass or work-around. Perhaps this isn't the case. Either way, the behavior of his wheels seems to always come back to SOME kind of oscillation. This he freely admits; he just doesn't offer any details on it.

[ME]

Please, ANYONE, show me i'm wrong.??? :(

I tried, but now I have no idea where to begin. I simply don't get it. And you are so convinced...

You obviously all get the principle by now

I get your search, but obviouslly not your solution.
I was already lost when you asked:

• Everyone follow that so far?

I think you mistreated kinetic energy when you asked that, with (I think obvious) weird results... but you already concluded things.
Tracking back to your linear-example didn't work, and you're already way paste that slinky...

And with:

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

I have no idea where to start and what to ask.

There's no free lunch, no magic... no actions without consequences!

...so I guess there's still no N3-break.
Unless ...

What more could i possibly say to add further clarity?

If you are really convinced then you better level it up to a mechanical exercise.
Good luck.

[Silvertiger]

Imagine that gravity is a ponzi scheme. We know that one can profit from investing in a ponzi scheme so long as the investment required to start it and any gains made in interim have not been maxed out. Ponzis are pyramid schemes that start up using an initial investment of their "own" money, which in truth they owe to other people from past ponzis in a sort of ponzi chain. They promise some return on investment percentage, and for a time it pays well...until the well of the initial investment plus current gains starts to tap out. This is when a smart customer/distributor knows it's time to cash out. If he looks at it like a long-term business, then he will lose. But if he looks at it like a transaction for a profit, then he will win. That is the weakness AND the symmetry of ponzi schemes that can be exploited. The whole margin of profitability that avails itself to screw over the people who trying to screw YOU is nothing more than "timing" or timeline (the period of acceleration). In every ponzi, there is a start-up (energy storage) and there is a collapse (energy completely spent). However, there is no limit to the profit (energy gain) you can make in between the two, other than the limit of the ponzi owner's original start-up capital plus the combined investment capital of his distributor network pyramid. The profit HE makes from acquiring new distributors and building his pyramid allows several overunity cycles of the original investment to occur until there are too many distributors and the thus the promised ROI multiplied by their shear numbers exceeds the amount of available capital to keep the machine going. However, the cascade effect in the middle of this timeline is where any "excess" money comes from. Perhaps Bessler figured out how to cash out his transactions and reinvest into "new" ponzis and kept the chain moving.

[MrVibrating]

I think my post got buried by a book lol. Just a quick observation here....again...I think that inevitably what happens, when people start attempting to think outside the box, that it is easy to be completely unaware that just such a process often leads to creating a separate box, one so tiny and far away that nothing seems to make sense when trying to tie it somehow to the original box that they got away from to begin with. One little thing goes wrong or is in disagreement with something else, and this leads to an even tinier portion of the box that branches off into conjecture and assumptions that simply MUST be fact. This is where "either/or" statements tend to become self-limiting and ultimately destructive.

People make far too many assumptions. How about raising some important questions for the process of elimination?

1. As an alchemist, could Bessler have possibly used magnets in some way or form?
2. Could he have used a material and/or form that taps a source of energy from the earth OTHER than gravity?
3. Was he at all aware of sympathetic frequencies and harmonics for the application of amplification and gain?

I myself do not know, as he only hints at what he did and did not do and gave limited descriptions of this. Nikola Tesla proved that there are other sources of energy that can be tapped depending on the material (Bessler's form/essence) used, and the potential difference that can be exploited and utilized.

You've made a box whereby the only possibility is an N3 bypass or work-around. Perhaps this isn't the case. Either way, the behavior of his wheels seems to always come back to SOME kind of oscillation. This he freely admits; he just doesn't offer any details on it..

Sorry, i'm keeping up as best i can..

I've been hunting symmetry breaks for many years before starting this mission.

Magnets were fairly basic in his time, and understanding of magnetism even moreso. Obviously even modern NdFeB's couldn't store anywhere near enough energy to explain his wheels' performances, so we'd rather be talking about an EM symmetry break instead. One is possible, but it's so difficult to tame there's practically zero chance he could've exploited it.

As for alternative energy sources, i am absolutely categorically not (knowingly anyway) attempting any kind of gravitational asymmetry, so if that's what this ultimately turns out to be i'll be as gobsmacked as anyone. No, scratch that - a hundred times moreso. Although it looks increasingly like it could be more of a possibility than ever...

A "real" N3 break (as opposed to an "effective" one) would be gaining momentum ex-nihilo, from the Higgs field. I initially thought that was what we were doing here, but this seems increasingly doubtful, the source being rather more down to earth (if by 'down' we mean up, anyway)..

His systems were basically OU. Those were Leibniz and Wolffe's take-home conclusions, and they had a good grasp of CoM and CoE. So we're talking about systems driven by a classical symmetry break. Gravity and rest mass are constant, so it can't be any kind of typical attempt at a GPE asymmetry, which leaves us inertia and momentum.. an N3 break

His wheels depended upon statorless operation - the hallmark of an N3 exploit.

Yet also, vertical rotation.

There are no symmetry breaks possible in inertial mechanics, and likewise, neither in gravitational systems... therefore the only remaining possibility is one pertaining to a combination of both systems at once.

And here is one. An effective N3 break. The asymmetric distribution of momentum and thus net rise clearly works as intended.. it's irrefutable, at least mathematically and in sim world. We'll get to physical tests in time.

As for Schumann resonances etc., you've gotta be kidding, the energy densities are whole orders out of whack.. Wolffe did suggest the wheel must be driven by an external inflow of energy beyond the senses, but was basically just describing what we'd call "OU" - a system evidently if inexplicably open, when otherwise expected to be thermodynamically closed.

So either way, OU or not, subtle quantum sources and sinks or just boring old lumbering masses, there has to be a symmetry break to explain his wheels' performance, and this appears to fit the bill down to a T.

In every detail - even the very slow, yet very high power wheel he implied would take a long time to build. The load-matching characteristics. The rapid start-up.

Plus we seem to be closer to nailing the source, too.. so we have a fairly complete chain of causation, at every key stage of the anomaly so far.. no magic anywhere.

I think this all pans out, and any other possibility that anyone else is or has been chasing, that isn't this, even in some other guise, is probably a waste of time mate.

I could still be wrong tho, naturally. I just don't think i am. Whatever anyone else might've been expecting, this is what the solution looks like..

[MrVibrating]

Please, ANYONE, show me i'm wrong.??? :(

I tried, but now I have no idea where to begin. I simply don't get it. And you are so convinced...

You obviously all get the principle by now

I get your search, but obviouslly not your solution.
I was already lost when you asked:

• Everyone follow that so far?

I think you mistreated kinetic energy when you asked that, with (I think obvious) weird results... but you already concluded things.
Tracking back to your linear-example didn't work, and you're already way paste that slinky...

And with:

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

I have no idea where to start and what to ask.

There's no free lunch, no magic... no actions without consequences!

...so I guess there's still no N3-break.
Unless ...

What more could i possibly say to add further clarity?

If you are really convinced then you better level it up to a mechanical exercise.
Good luck.

LOL so you don't understand why CoE depends upon N3?

You don't see that all of the motion imparted by the internal interaction is applied to one mass only (well, the Earth too, but that's a whole 'nother can o' worms)? Instead of imparting positive and negative momenta, we end up with just one sign?

I think you're pulling our leg mate..