Plying CF as pseudo-inertia to scam N3

[Silvertiger]

And yet Bessler always talks about some form of oscillation. Perhaps the box you're thinking in is not the box Bessler was in. What if it was the opposite? What if N3 was his exploit for net bias. Instead of having a reactionless wheel, what if his wheel depended on reaction? What if he oscillated reaction wave forms, such that two 0.5 sine-phased reactions created a temporary symmetry break (cancellation) for one half cycle, and a harmonic resonance (combination) of the two reactions for the other half cycle?

[MrVibrating]

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.

LOL cheers mate, the most anyone could do to help at this stage is replicate the maths - corroboration that the principle's technically-viable would be a total god-send, i'm just wasting pages repeating painstakingly-clear predicates that seem to be willfully ignored by the people i'm explaining them to. Coming up with the principle was the easy bit - getting reasoned peer review here's like trying to wring blood out of a stone.. i mean you can't force collaboration, but it kind of undermines the whole purposes of sharing if i'm just repeating the same crap no one reads. I might as well log out and finish solo..

If i stick around then obviously, as i come up with designs i'll be recording everything here, but in the meantime if anyone wants to race ahead i've been at pains to explain what seems the best way to go - angular-angular inertias, one of which is the wheel body itself, blipping descending radial weighted arms with counter-torque (so braking their acceleration under gravity, while torquing the wheel in its forwards direction) five times in a row breaks unity - the gain is in the form of RKE, and can be harvested via GPE or CF/CP workloads, transmitting their outputs to reset whatever's blipping the falling weight with counter-torque (ie. a rotary spring, say).

But to be honest i really haven't even begun considering designs yet, and as i've explained, i intend to look for one that performs the whole interaction within a few degrees of rotation, taking much smaller bites of excess momentum.

But if anyone wishes to beat me to the post, you know what you need to do: generate an asymmetric distribution of momentum from an otherwise fully-elastic inertial interaction; accumulate its sum, repeat that at least five times and you now have 25% more energy than you've spent.

Assuming i'll be spending every night this week repeating everything i've said tonight and last night etc., the earliest i'll get to really brainstorming mechanisms will likely be next weekend's bath-time.

(don't get me wrong i bath daily, in what little time i spare for it, but there's baths and there's baths, you know what i mean. That's about my best opportunity in a week for anything 'cerebral'.. stiff drink & stogie + bubbles..)

But i'm expecting to look more at scissory things... planar linkages etc.

[MrVibrating]

And yet Bessler always talks about some form of oscillation.

Quotes?

Perhaps the box you're thinking in is not the box Bessler was in. What if it was the opposite? What if N3 was his exploit for net bias. Instead of having a reactionless wheel, what if his wheel depended on reaction? What if he oscillated reaction wave forms, such that two 0.5 sine-phased reactions created a temporary symmetry break (cancellation) for one half cycle, and a harmonic resonance (combination) of the two reactions for the other half cycle?

Everything in the current scheme depends upon CoM and CoE holding precisely as and where they're supposed to, especially N3. It's not a real N3 break (impossible), but a simulated one, using Earth's gravity and inertia. Earth is the counter-momentum, and the momentum we're giving it, we're paying for.

It just turns out that it's cheaper in the long run to keep paying the same fixed amount of energy for our momentum - even though we're also paying to induce an equal opposing amount within the earth, but which is of no practical use to us - than to pay the accumulating cost of momentum via N3 and thus 1/2mV^2.

If we buy momentum via normal, N3-compliant means, then its cost squares with rising velocity. It gets real expensive, real quick.

But if we dodge N3 by sinking counter-momenta to Earth, then 1/2mV^2 no longer applies to our input energy, since the internal 'counter momentum' is zero - we're rectifying momentum of one sign only into the wheel, and sinking its opposite phase to earth, and so the applied momentum is pushing off from a 'pseudo-counter-momentum', that is actually locked to gravity's reference frame.. so we're essentially torquing against the Earth, rather than our internal 'pseudo-counter-momentum' (the non-accelerating inertia), which is why we're able to drag it around with us, type stuff.

Clear as mud? Yeah, me too.. :/

As for waveform rectification, what's the energy field? What's the energy density of these hypothetical source fluctuations? If it's mechanical then as you say, we get full cancellation, and then a +3db boost at peak amplitude, so that is an energy source... bloody weak one tho.

If it's EM then what could've been producing such a pulse in a purpose-built stone-walled room halfway up a friggin' castle?

One thing i'm pretty sure JB did say was that the motive power of his machines came from the masses themselves. An impetus to motion that was induced or impelled from within, not from without. An intrinsic, not extrinsic, torque.

Sounds like a momentum asymmetry to me.

He also said that, given sufficient time, he could construct a wheel that turned very slowly, but with great power, emitting a constant busy clatter.

Think about that last proposition for a minute - those would be mutually-contradictory performance characteristics if "slower" necessarily meant fewer interactions per unit time, rather than just per cycle. In other words, that kind of performance envelope implies that more energy is being generated per angle / time. This can only be resolved by an effective N3 break - hammering a constant trickle of excess momentum into the wheel, in very small angular increments (basically the exact opposite of the whacking great displacements i've been showing, in my crappy futile attempts at lucid exposition).

Mate, this really does have to be it. Whatever else you might've been expecting the solution to look like, examine it closely and you'll see it is paradoxical - no other fully-consistent explanation is possible. What is "OU"? If work = F*d, and input and output displacement must be equal, then how can F vary passively - for free - between input and output legs of a full cycle? It's digging for buried treasure mate; the answer's right there in the question. It's magical thinking. Hoping for an inexplicable miracle. "OU" means input and output energy fields have to possess different scaling dimensions for their respective energy terms. This is just inescapable and self-evident. We need a system in which energy is a subjective function of velocity, and then we need to manipulate that subjectivity to keep input and output energy fields in different inertial frames. Then OU (or UU) can flow naturally and causally from the basic maths and physics, no miracles required.

[MrVibrating]

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.

Jesus what's with the metaphors man?

In between over-thinking and under-thinking it, there's gotta be some equilibrium level of comprehension the group will eventually settle down on.

All the time in the world..

[Silvertiger]

Oscillations. Weights acting in pairs, gravitating towards the center and back out again, ALTERNATLEY switching places. Have you honestly NOT read anything he wrote? Also, If N3 reactionLESS is possible, then N3 reactionFULL oscillated between reactionLESS is also possible. And I'm not talking about EM energy fields. I'm talking about oscillating the timing in which action/reaction events occur as one or more pairs of events. Oscillations. As far as metaphors, are they any more understandable than your novel-length techno jargon? How about a simple statement in the regular understandable English in three sentences or less? Have you read the terminology you use? It makes my head spin! :D For example, what in the hell is a "unity threshold of 4 RA's"??? I could cite hundreds of examples just like this. People seem to be attracted to developing a rhetoric that no one but them understands. The translations, if there are any, get lost in the plethora of insanely long technical posts. I can do that too: The mutually interacting wave-guided accelerations, due to their eccentric, yet intrinsic cyclic properties derived from the collaboration in conjunction with the mass-momentum pairs at an inversely proportional distribution of angular accelerative potential differences across the weight-pairs, especially when you consider the WTF ramifications for N3 in a cyclic field allowing for TGIF....blah blah blah blah blah. It would be nice to just be able to follow along.

[MrVibrating]

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!

Yeah i'm probably just a very naughty boy.

It's a head-fuck of a symmetry break tho...

..i mean, i'm fairly certain it's propelling the Earth. But that's another sink not a source?

Unless we were decelerating it, somehow, and so converting its KE to ours?

Yet the interaction only requires alignment to gravity, and then only during half a cycle. IOW it doesn't seem to correspond to Earth's orbital momentum vector, for instance, and would work anytime of day, anywhere on Earth (or in the air).

So yeah, it seems pretty clear that propelling the Earth is a direct input load - half our input energy goes into the machine's momentum, the other half inducing an equal opposite linear momentum to Earth. It's defo a pay-in deal, not a pay-out.

So bottom line seems to be that we're using "free" energy to make momentum, which we're applying to Earth and our wheel, in equal proportions, while using the portion on the wheel to generate excess KE from its diverging inertial frame..

So where's all this energy ultimately coming from? It's powering our wheel, but also propelling the Earth with equal power (again, equal amounts of input energy are being applied to both).. and it's coming from the wheel... from the unidirectional momentum gain..!?

So is it vacuum-energy after all? Who pays the piper?

[MrVibrating]

..could the grounded counter-momentum be cancelled by the earth's gravitation upwards towards the inertially-stalled mass?

So the downwards force being applied to ground is balanced by its upwards acceleration towards the non-accelerating weight?

Then it's a zero-sum, and perfectly safe to use? We wouldn't be propelling Earth (potentially not even counter-torque since we're statorless).. and can just rinse out the free energy with only heat to worry about?

Could it be so forgiving? Such good news surely has to be too good to be true?

It'd probably scupper our chances for warp drives, but safe mechanical OU just seems far too optimistic?

It's as if i'm only able to believe the impossible thing if it has an equally-cynical hidden cost.. but if there's no net momentum pollution then it's basically manna from heaven..?

[MrVibrating]

From the purely classical perspective, the energy simply comes from the maths.

Yet the map is not the territory.

The value of the RKE gain lies in its resistance to deceleration, ie. its angular inertia, but also its velocity.

Resistance to velocity change is caused by the Higgs interaction, endowing matter with mass.

However the RKE value itself is not anomalous.

The gradient exists simply because the input energy is less. It doesn't rise with velocity. Or rather, the velocity of the interaction never rises - the two inertias begin each acceleration phase at zero relative velocity, and inertia itself is velocity-agnostic.

So the energy source is whatever's allowing the inertial interaction to keep producing positive sums.

Which is gravity.

Gravity is inverting the sign of our counter-momentum.

But is that constant momentum of our gravitationally-augmented inertial interaction really our reaction matter?

Or just a proxy?

The 'non-accelerating' mass IS undergoing absolute acceleration, just not relative to Earth, which instead is falling upwards towards it just as neatly as a feather drops like a chicken sandwich in a vacuum, thus compensating the flight of the upper mass relative to Earth's frame of reference..?

So the Earth is chasing that upper mass as it's stalled in its downwards acceleration, and the momentum being generated at that moment is being sunk into the wheel, not reciprocated by a GPE landing and thus returning that momentum to Earth.

So it kinda looks like we'd be generating energy from the GPE of Earth falling, under mutual gravitation, towards our inertially-suspended mass, and the imbalance of momentum this causes generates a net thrust on the complete system.

In which case it does seem to be energy from gravity, which, being a curvature of space-time, would also bring us back to warp-drive territory, albeit by a rather obtuse route, although from the QM perspective we'd be back to vacuum energy via whatever the gravity mediator.

Yeah, hopefully someone else can get a better handle on it than me.. :/

[eccentrically1]

Furcurequs wrote:
It sounds like you've been beamed up, that you've ascended to "the realm." Say hello to Ken for us! ;P

LOL i'm not the one advocating gravity wheels.

The gradient exists simply because the input energy is less. It doesn't rise with velocity. Or rather, the velocity of the interaction never rises - the two inertias begin each acceleration phase at zero relative velocity, and inertia itself is velocity-agnostic.

So the energy source is whatever's allowing the inertial interaction to keep producing positive sums.

Which is gravity.

Yeah, hopefully someone else can get a better handle on it than me.. :/

Hopefully.

[raj]

Reading bits and pieces from this long drawn debate, especially from Silvertiger's last post, is giving me more confidence in my own Auto Wheel concept.

This thread makes nice reading!

Raj

[Grimer]

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!

Yeah I'm probably just a very naughty boy.

It's a head-fuck of a symmetry break tho...

..I mean, I'm fairly certain it's propelling the Earth. But that's another sink not a source?

Unless we were decelerating it, somehow, and so converting its KE to ours?

Yet the interaction only requires alignment to gravity, and then only during half a cycle. IOW it doesn't seem to correspond to Earth's orbital momentum vector, for instance, and would work anytime of day, anywhere on Earth (or in the air).

So yeah, it seems pretty clear that propelling the Earth is a direct input load - half our input energy goes into the machine's momentum, the other half inducing an equal opposite linear momentum to Earth. It's defo a pay-in deal, not a pay-out.

So bottom line seems to be that we're using "free" energy to make momentum, which we're applying to Earth and our wheel, in equal proportions, while using the portion on the wheel to generate excess KE from its diverging inertial frame..

So where's all this energy ultimately coming from? It's powering our wheel, but also propelling the Earth with equal power (again, equal amounts of input energy are being applied to both).. and it's coming from the wheel... from the unidirectional momentum gain..!?

So is it vacuum-energy after all? ....

Yes. It is "vacuum" energy. That's absolutely spot on.

Why?

Because the vacuum isn't nothing. It is, inter alia, the beta-atmosphere which holds materials together. Materials are not held together by internal tensions which imply action at a distance, an unphysical concept as Newton well realised. They are held together by a reduction of the quasi-fluid phase relative the the external pressure of the beta-atmosphere.

We get energy from the various properties of the alpha-atmosphere (the air). We can get energy from the various properties of the beta-atmosphere - the electromagnetic atmosphere, and the amount of energy we require is completely negligible compared to the amount of energy available.

Tesla realised this but his work has been buried by the powers that be.

Gravity is only the handmaiden in the process, the catalyst. It is not the source of energy.

[Furcurequs]

MrVibrating,

After having spent a fair amount of time trudging through your thick and heavily made up jargon, I actually was able to finally figure out what you were trying to do. So, please don't bother repeating yourself.

Since I do understand what you are trying to do, that is why I'm now trying to show you what you've done wrong with your math.

So, let's first consider what the conditions would have been like if you hadn't added your 96 Joules of energy to the falling system of mass...

We would have had two 1kg masses each with an initial velocity of 19.62 m/s downward that accelerate downward for 1 second in the earth's gravitational field.

We can calculate the distance they both fall:

S = Vi x t + 1/2 x g x t^2

= 19.62 m/s x 1 s + 1/2 x 9.8 m/s^2 x (1 s)^2

= 19.62 m + 4.9 m

= 24.52 m

We can calculate the total work done on them due to the force of gravity:

F x d = m x g x h = Fg x S (from above)

= 2 kg x 9.8 m/s^2 x 24.52 m

= 19.6 x 24.52 J

= 481 Joules

We can calculate their total energy after the 1 s fall:

KEinitial + F x d (from above) = 1/2 mass x Vi^2 + 482 Joules

= 0.5 x 2 kg x (19.62 m/s)^2 + 482 Joules

= 385 Joules + 482 Joules

= 867 Joules

We can calculate their final downward velocity from this:

Vf = (KEf x 2 / mass)^0.5

= (867 Joules x 2 / 2 kg )^0.5

= 29.4 m/s

...and we can, of course, calculate the downward momentum of both masses:

P = mass x velocity

= 2 kg x 29.4 m/s

= 58.8 kg x m/s

MrVibrating, does that number look familiar to you?!

It should!! ...lol

...because it is the same total momentum that you have in your example even with your added 96 Joules of energy! You have bought nothing!

So, do you need me to explain this to you?!!!

Well, let me do that anyway...

Since you added energy internally to the falling 2 mass system, the upward and downward forces sum to zero and so don't change the total system momentum in the vertical direction at all! ...lol

It's a zero sum game. ...as I've already tried to point out.

The momentum you think you bought was only borrowed from the upper mass and so whether you know what you are doing or not, it's going to get paid back in reality.

Your best bet is to just try to hang on to the energy you are inputing.

...sorry...

I'll try to post another explanation later.

Dwayne

Oh, and don't worry about calling me Wayne. Even my own dad sometimes forgot the "D" for some reason.

(Btw, if my dad were still alive, he'd be 3 days shy of 100 years old right now. I just happened to be thinking about that.)

[Grimer]

100 years ago my dad was in the Civil Service Rifles and about to enter Jerusalem with General Allenby. :-)

[Furcurequs]

That's interesting. As I understand it, my dad was rejected for military service during World War II due to flat feet.

My dad has been gone now for over 25 years. Now that I'm getting older myself, I wish I knew more about his earlier life and had maybe paid more attention to adult conversations as a child.

[Furcurequs]

MrVibrating,

Let's say I have a 1 kg potato and I also have a potato gun mounted to the bow of my ship. My potato gun, also, when primed, loaded and fired can impart 1 Joule of kinetic energy.

So, I decide to shoot my potato forward in the same direction of motion as my ship!

Since I gave my 1 kg potato about 1 Joule of energy, that means I see it leaving the muzzle at 1.414 m/s!

...but someone on shore saw me do this and reasoned thusly:

Well, that guy's ship seems to be moving at 10 m/s and that potato seems to be leaving the cannon at 11.4 m/s.

That means the potato originally had 50 Joules of kinetic energy when in the potato cannon and now it has 65 Joules of energy.

Wait, but that means the potato gained 15 Joules of energy! ...yet that arse Dwayne told me his potato cannon could only impart 1 Joule of energy. Did that douche bag lie to me?!!

I need to see this again!!

Okay, it's me Dwayne again and I've just gotten a request from shore from a slightly rude person to fire my potato gun again. Luckily, though, I've found another 1 kg potato and I actually like firing my potato gun!

Boom!

Oops!

I forgot that I unbolted my 1 kg potato gun after the last firing and had not securely remounted it to the bow of my ship. Oh, well.

Dude on shore:

Okay, this time it seems the potato is moving at only 11 m/s forward but now the potato gun is no longer attached to the ship and is moving backwards relative to the ship! It still seems to be going forward at 9 m/s relative to me, though.

That means that this potato has gained only 10.5 Joules of energy instead of the previous potato's 15 Joules! ...but that is still quite a bit more than a single Joule! That Dwayne must really be a bunghole.

Wait, what about the cannon itself?

It slowed from 10 m/s to 9 m/s. That means It's original 50 Joules of kinetic energy has been reduced to 40.5 Joules of energy.

60.5 potato Joules plus 40.5 potato cannon Joules equals 101 total Joules. The potato and cannon originally had 100 Joules, so that means when everything is properly accounted for, the gun only added 1 Joule of kinetic energy. Maybe that Jerk wad Dwayne knew what he was talking about after all.

Wait?! ...but what about the momentum?! The total momentum must have changed!

Well, before it was 2 kg x 10 m/s or 20 kg x m/s.

The total momentum after the second firing was, however, 1 kg x 11 m/s + 1 kg x 9 m/s or... ...20 kg x m/s... ...which is exactly the same!

The firing of the potato gun didn't change the total momentum of the potato - potato gun system. Maybe the extra energy the potato ended up with in the first firing came from the ship, since the cannon was originally rigidly mounted to the ship.

Too bad the ship is too massive for me to have detected a possible change in its motion, but I suspect that really is where the extra energy of the first potato came from.

Don't you hate know-it-alls?!