Plying CF as pseudo-inertia to scam N3

A Bessler, gravity, free-energy free-for-all. Registered users can upload files, conduct polls, and more...

Moderator: scott

Post Reply
rlortie
Addict
Addict
Posts: 8475
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2005 6:20 pm
Location: Stanfield Or.

re: Plying CF as pseudo-inertia to scam N3

Post by rlortie »

To prove the the existence of heffalumps and/or woozie's, we must first construct a physical means to contain and utilizing them. Show Proof OF Principle they exist and be a self sustainable source of energy.

You can talk the math insisting they exist, but you evade the question of: "How do you prove it? Scissor jacks that can push upward while one leg is falling require two foundation points, which IMO spells counter-torque!

Ralph
MrVibrating
Addict
Addict
Posts: 2875
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2010 12:19 am
Location: W3

Re: re: Plying CF as pseudo-inertia to scam N3

Post by MrVibrating »

daanopperman wrote:Hi Mr V ,

In a wheel 2m dia , 60 rpm , rim v = 6.2 m/s .
If we can transfers all vel to one of the 2 masses and have the other mass come to a complete stop , without any back torque to the wheel , then the fired mass will have a vel of 12.5 m/s .
Will this velocity be of any use .
Sorry mate but you need to start from foundations of equal inertias.

The gain does not rely especially on this equality of the two inertias, but it significantly aids comprehension of the principle.

Angular inertia (or moment of inertia, 'MoI') times RPM = angular momentum.

Half MoI times RPM squared = rotational kinetic energy.

So i would begin with gravity disabled - ie. angular inertias horizontal to gravity - one of which would gravitate if subjected to gravity, and then apply a mutual torque between them, accelerating each in opposite directions, clockwise vs counter-clockwise.

I would be looking to adjust their MoI's such that this torque produced equal opposite RPM's.

Then i would know that the two angular inertias were equal, and could begin experimenting with gravity.

So then i'd apply that torque, and tweak its magnitude to try stabilise the rate of descent of the otherwise-gravitating inertia.

Then i would measure the RPM's of the non-gravitating inertia to determine its momentum and thus confirm the resulting momentum asymmetry; it should possess the momentum that would've been embodied on the gravitating mass, had it been allowed to accelerate.

That step confirmed, i would equalise their velocity with a mutual deceleration, the distribution of which must be unaffected by gravity, and note the net velocity / momentum of the system, to confirm the expected rise.

Then i'd try to repeat that, to confirm that the same input energy bought the same rise in momentum a second time, on top of the results from the first..

..and so on, climbing the ladder one rung at a time, up to five cycles and beyond, and confirming OU.

The optimum feedback mechanism for harvesting the gains is probably centrifugal workloads, or else further GPE workloads, or maybe some combination... whatever works for you; the only thing to really try to avoid is a stator.

The details are entirely up to you.

My advice tho - if you can't actually see the gain principle / symmetry break / free energy gradient - just in terms of the general dynamics of the concept, at least - then i wouldn't bother trying to design anything just cos some nutter on teh interwebz said its magic.

Understand the principle first. If it 'clicks', go for it, if not, don't waste your efforts..
MrVibrating
Addict
Addict
Posts: 2875
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2010 12:19 am
Location: W3

Re: re: Plying CF as pseudo-inertia to scam N3

Post by MrVibrating »

rlortie wrote:To prove the the existence of heffalumps and/or woozie's, we must first construct a physical means to contain and utilizing them. Show Proof OF Principle they exist and be a self sustainable source of energy.

You can talk the math insisting they exist, but you evade the question of: "How do you prove it? Scissor jacks that can push upward while one leg is falling require two foundation points, which IMO spells counter-torque!

Ralph
LOL why are you making demands of me? Am i asking you to believe me? Am i asking you to disprove anything?


All i have so far is all i've given, sorry to disappoint. You seem to consider the maths as some kind of vague and untrustworthy obstacle to progression, and that's fine, but at this stage a mathematical solution is all it is!

We'll get to designs and then builds, or you can just race on ahead, sit back and wait / spectate, whatever... could even try understanding what the hell i'm on about if you're especially bored or impatient.. (tho please share cos no one else seems to have a clue)

I'm not gonna use the "S" word, but there's an inexorability to all of this.. working designs are now possible. The range of potential embodiments limited only by our strained imaginations..


PS. and why are some people still obsessing about scissorjacks? They're completely unnecessary and incidental to the principle. You could use 'em, i'd be amazed if you could get it to work that way tho. It's everything to do with momentum distributions, and nothing to do with any particular mechanism..
User avatar
ME
Addict
Addict
Posts: 3512
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2005 6:37 pm
Location: Netherlands

Re: re: Plying CF as pseudo-inertia to scam N3

Post by ME »

"Bla bla bla bla bla.... ".
Here's mine....

So to blow some of my steam (totally unnecessary, but I do it anyway)
The tone: It's not anger, but actually a surprise of disbelief. I write this down out of residual respect for your contributions, even though it diminishes per post.
<steam>
  • It's not MY theory I question, it's YOURS. You know, that theory you spend years and years on, and now found mathematical proof for?
    YOU are the expert of YOUR theory you planned to drop HERE to discuss.
    Explain your idea: If not for my sake, then please for the sake of other readers... or simply for the sake of yourself as it also helps you to simplify the proof for yourself.
    YOU are the one who literally asked for a critical look. But for 20+ pages, there's nothing to look at.

    So you may throw some what-aboutism to question my intellect and whatever, but that's entirely not the issue.
    It may be true that I'm likely not as intelligent as you want me to be. And I could ask: "Why?", but I really don't care.
    I don't know what you think of me, but obviously you have the wrong impression: and I can't help you get disappointed because of your own impression.

    I could be as dumb as Fu#, and you still find yourself in the position of not being able to explain your thing. It's not about ME or about all the others in whom you're dissappointed.
    Because if you could, you'd already done it.
</steam>

V, I asked for a simple explanation... not an ego-war.
Why do you transform this into some vendetta, blame the rest, write more text, and cry "troll"?
Marchello E.
-- May the force lift you up. In case it doesn't, try something else.---
User avatar
ME
Addict
Addict
Posts: 3512
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2005 6:37 pm
Location: Netherlands

re: Plying CF as pseudo-inertia to scam N3

Post by ME »

mrVibrating wrote:
We can make 9.81 kg-m/s of momentum for the fixed, speed-invariant price of 96.23 Joules, which equivalently, works out to 9.81 J per kg-m/s.

Divided between two 1 kg masses, each has 4.905 kg-m/s and 48.11 J.

But per KE=1/2mV^2, at 4.905 m/s 1 kg has just 12.029 J...

So on the first cycle, our very first kg-m/s of manufactured momentum costs exactly four times more to make, than it is worth. To put it another way, it is 4x under-unity.

Everyone follow that so far?
So yes, that bit in red is a mistake, immediately corrected in the following sentence, and irrelevant since it is not used for anything. I'm not calculating anything with it. The conclusion, in bold, is valid.

I am fallible, i've been saying throughout i have and will make mistakes. The maths will need tidying, but the broad strokes are there.

WHAT MATH !!!

Red is wrong, so what is that 'but" doing there? When there's no "but" and no 48.11 Joule then what "cost". And when no "cost" then what "four times". And then what "other way", and thus what "4x under-unity". What conclusion? Did you mean: "confusion"?

It seriously lacks math. Please, for your own sake, redo your 'calculus'. All your 20+ pages relate to this "4 UU" 'conclusion', unless it's not and you could point that out too..

And don't look at me to do your math for you: it's not MY math.
You're on an OU forum flaunting some degree of maths skills
What about me?
You claim to have no skills at all, yet you display your talents here: I don't know what's worse. I suspect your talent has nothing to do with that claim... but whatever you say, dude-who-talks-about-trust.
In any case it would be nice to know there are more people above and below your level (wherever your level may be).... It's best to show your stuff at the lowest level you find appropriate.

About me....
Even though it shouldn't be about me.

I try to show low-level math-skills which everyone should be able to follow, me included. I try to annotate it as much and as often as possible, so you only need a hand calculator to verify my ability of addition and multiplication.
So, indeed not always but each time I do annotate a full list, you even know (for the thousandth time) that "v" is velocity, and "L" is angular momentum for instance.
It may look impressive, it's just courtesy.
Not all people read every post, not all people do or like math, not all people use the same letters for the same things, I prefer SI-metrics but occasionally rework things into that confusing US-stuff if that's the current "norm" in that topic. Whoo-hoo for me, I do it for verification purposes, it that doesn't make me some math-wizard... compulsive? Maybe, sometimes.

I think well-constructed math is more clear that a whole topic full of words. And more important: insert your own different numbers and off you go.
I don't use complex integrals, or other higher-level stuff this forum can't even display. I try to show why I think something happens, and how I think something happens. And if it's too complex then I show graphics, nothing to be afraid of. And we all make mistakes, that's not the point.

Hint: make your basic-math in such way that almost everyone can verify what you do, without making it a homework-puzzle for everyone.
Use an explanation for each assumption or terminology, or find an appropriate link if you think that's more convenient.

MrVibrating wrote:
I asked you how you divide your kinetic energy, because I thought that's what you do...
WHY do you think this? I've said no such thing, that was Dwayne's error. I'm calculating KE from 1/2mV^2, in simple annotated steps..?
geez. I'm talking about your own page 11 math.
For the page 11 math, MrVibrating wrote:Divided between two 1 kg masses
It's a "recap", without the distracting bla-bla. That's why I picked that post. It should be complete.
Marchello E.
-- May the force lift you up. In case it doesn't, try something else.---
User avatar
ME
Addict
Addict
Posts: 3512
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2005 6:37 pm
Location: Netherlands

re: Plying CF as pseudo-inertia to scam N3

Post by ME »

You're deliberately ignoring all the accurate maths
I just ignore all your irrelevant talk, and the run-off stuff based on that "4 UU" I clearly don't understand and which you clearly refuse to explain: SIMPLY in a single paragraph.
I think this page-11 "recap"-math is the first I need to understand before I try the rest. I filter. In this case: a lot. Perhaps too much.
You could also point me to the "right math" instead of deflecting with what you think I do, or do not, or you expect or get disappointed about.

So, no surprise, I selected two pages:
1. I focus on your free falling actuator: it's a matter of following the center of mass.
2. I focus on your first (I think) 'full' recapped explanation of math which forms the basis of your additional talk.

That is 2 posts out of 20+ pages. Not something to be proud of.
The more you write, the more I need to filter (read: ignore) as it's all based on that unconfirmed stuff.
When it's all clear, then it's indeed up to me to catch-up on some reading. In the meantime I lack behind more and more.

But likely we reached some status-quo... and we waste both our times.
I have other things to do.

Ok, just one:
I find it so incredible that Marcello doesn't grasp CoE's dependence on N3 that i no longer trust his intellectual capacity, honesty or motivations
Just to bug you?
I think CoE has roots more basic than that, and (as hinted earlier, since page 2, and actually throughout this forum) related to more primitive N-laws.

N3 changes N2. N2 changes N1. Not the other way around.
I claimed earlier CoE was N2 and not N3. But actually CoE can already be derived from N1, making it an even more fundamental aspect.
Yes mind the hierarchy: N3 depends on N2, and N2 depends on N1. So yes indeed, N3 depends on CoE.
The arrow of dependency for N1 versus CoE will be a philosophical question.
But CoE does not depend on N3 to be valid.

I may show you how to get to such conclusion... but it's already known. So expect nothing new or spectacular. And it shows the thermodynamic issue.
Are you just another pseudo-skeptic troll?
What about that? I think I'm not.

As a "troll" I ask for a simple explanation of what you're doing, I tell myself it's for the sake of everyone. I'm not the one deflecting stuff or confuse the hell out of it. I think I gave enough leeway for you not to get stuck on what I say, but to show what you have: it's your choice. I showed you where and how to convince me, and others. I even encouraged you to "level it up".
I'm probably the worst troll ever!

And don't look at me for trolling, I was just minding my slinky-business until you claimed me for your messiah-stuff. So I had to look into your stuff.

What ever you do, or whatever I am: Basic physics and math should still work - unless you proof things work otherwise, read: a spoon-fed proof or a verifiable experiment.
We are all here because we're skeptical at some point and try to be open-minded about things, that doesn't automatically imply we now believe every wild and random idea.
But pseudo-skeptic? hmm, for the third time, remember: "Energy of mutually-incompatible dimensions", "line integrals intersecting at precisely 4 reactionless accelerations" - there's more, I'm just stuck with these.

Once again, troll or not, it's not about me. And it's not about all the others who misunderstand your thing.
What's it about? I don't know.

TL;DR;
Probably a waste of time in need of a summary.
Assumption is the mother of ...
mrVibrating wrote:Understand the principle first.
That's what I tried to do.
But what about ...
... oh forget it.
Last edited by ME on Fri Nov 17, 2017 9:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Marchello E.
-- May the force lift you up. In case it doesn't, try something else.---
User avatar
WaltzCee
Addict
Addict
Posts: 3361
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2007 9:52 pm
Location: Huntsville, TX
Contact:

re: Plying CF as pseudo-inertia to scam N3

Post by WaltzCee »

I'll be honest, I haven't been able to keep up
with this thread. I'm in the last parts of a design
phase and about to start a build. If I ask a question
that's already been addressed, just give me a link.
Now reconsider the above interaction, with one small difference:

- one of the masses remains a normal 1 kg lump of matter

- the other is reduced to a 0.5 kg mass. However, this smaller mass is also subject to an additional force that resists acceleration; pseudo-inertia! So it is subjected to a 2 G centrifugal force. 1/2 a kg at 2x gravity = 1 kg @ 1 G!
(1) How much energy does it take to spin this 1/2 kg to 2g
to make it equivalent to 1 kg @ 1 g-F?
As before, 1 joule of sprung PE is unloaded between them
(2) How much energy does it take to get the 1 kg mass to catch
the 1/2 kg @ 2 g-F so this part of the process can happen and also how
does that acceleration change the 1 kg mass?
...but then the psuedo-inertia suddenly gets weaker, possibly disappearing altogether, as the CF substituting the missing mass with its own resistance to acceleration is reduced, by drawing an orbiting mass inwards..!
(3) How much energy does it take to suck in 1/2 g from a 2g-F orbit to
the point the 1/2 g mass is accelerating twice the 1 kg mass.
- now the 1/2 kg mass has insufficient momentum for its rest mass - at half the mass, it should be going twice as fast as the 1 kg mass..
- Finally bring the masses back together again, ready to repeat, and the net system momentum has risen by 0.5 kg-m/s!
(2) How much energy does it take . . .

I'll take your word for it if you've accounted for
all these energy expenses but I would like to say
this is going to be one heck of a contraption.
I don't think my client could design it.
........................¯\_(ツ)_/¯
¯\_(ツ)_/¯ the future is here ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Advocate of God Almighty, maker of heaven and earth and redeemer of my soul.
Walter Clarkson
© 2023 Walter W. Clarkson, LLC
All rights reserved. Do not even quote me w/o my expressed written consent.
rlortie
Addict
Addict
Posts: 8475
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2005 6:20 pm
Location: Stanfield Or.

re: Plying CF as pseudo-inertia to scam N3

Post by rlortie »

OK! So lets take your above post one step at a time.

I believe that I have found a way to build a better heffalump trap, it does not rely on levers, scissors, pulleys or bellows. You can build as many traps in the circumference if a drum, entirely dependent on size of trap and diameter of drum.

My design is simple in thought but not an easy task for a carpenters apprentice or one without resources and skills. My design in Bessler's terms of being at a right angle to the axis will have two traps every 10.28 degrees of rotation. I am confident that it will give the physical means of utilizing your math to prove the the existence of heffalumps in the form of OB and off center mass. Cutting to the chase: "A self-sustaining gravity wheel".
After all heffalumps prefer stealing honey on level ground.

My only attempts you call "demands" is and was to incite you in hopes of innovating some sort of a design worthy of backing your mathematical claims. I have no reason to make any other demands from you. You are not asking me to believe but rather speculate and discover for myself. I have no reason nor objective proof to make any rebuke or rebuttal to what now is long enough to be considered a "Synopsis".

I do not consider the math as some kind of vague and untrustworthy obstacle to progression. I pay little if any attention; a probable mathematical solution is all it is! And as it it is, it shall remain until either proven or objective proof backing a proper rebuttal becomes available.

I feel I already have a head start on a viable design, which states I have already raced ahead, not unlike the tortoise and the heir (two opposites) we will get to designs and then builds.

Normally I am not one to sit back and wait / spectate, whatever... However current financial problems due to health issues have forced me to limit my research. Yes I am bored, Monday I am checking into the hospital for a new defibrillator requiring another lead for a total of four. I then proceed to an eye surgeon for cataract removal in both eyes. Plus it is winter time here and to expensive to heat my shop.
I'm not gonna use the "S" word, but there's an inexorability to all of this.. working designs are now possible. The range of potential embodiment's limited only by our strained imaginations..
I am not so sure that I would go so far to use the term "inexorability" in its true Latin meaning: "unyielding" or "inflexible" at this time. Lets get some objectivity under our belts first. And as I have preached on this forum since joining: "The range of potential embodiment's IS only limited by our strained imagination'. As Jules Verne once stated; "I man can imagine it, write about it, man will eventually build it."

PS. and why are some people still obsessing about scissorjacks? They're completely unnecessary and incidental to the principle. You could use 'em, i'd be amazed if you could get it to work that way tho. It's everything to do with momentum distributions, and nothing to do with any particular mechanism..
I for one am not obsessed about scissor-jacks I cut my wisdom teeth on them years ago! I have absolutely no use for them in research or reality as a tool or otherwise. I do not believe the average member here realizes how much leverage one need apply if the scissors are 45 degrees or more open.

Ralph
User avatar
WaltzCee
Addict
Addict
Posts: 3361
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2007 9:52 pm
Location: Huntsville, TX
Contact:

re: Plying CF as pseudo-inertia to scam N3

Post by WaltzCee »

Marshmallow prolly crunches more numbers
before breakfast than most do their whole life.
........................¯\_(ツ)_/¯
¯\_(ツ)_/¯ the future is here ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Advocate of God Almighty, maker of heaven and earth and redeemer of my soul.
Walter Clarkson
© 2023 Walter W. Clarkson, LLC
All rights reserved. Do not even quote me w/o my expressed written consent.
MrVibrating
Addict
Addict
Posts: 2875
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2010 12:19 am
Location: W3

Post by MrVibrating »

@Marchello

If you can't or won't get a grip on basic CoM and CoE you have nothing to add here but noise. The 48 J mistake you found is not used in any calculation or conclusion, i corrected it myself in the very next sentence, it was a late-night "recap" from memory and all KE's are calculated from 1/2mV^2, the value of which is the entire point. "Efficiency" is a function if input vs output energy (again, how could you possibly not know this?). The "line integral" is the friggin Fd integral - you plot force on one axis, displacement on the other and the interaction produces a curve or line, and the area under that curve is your energy. Do this for input and output integrals and compare the energy under the curve to determine efficiency. Plot input vs output as a function of velocity and one's a straight line linear sum while the other's a diagonal curve, so whatever their origin value the latter inevitably intersects the former beyond some threshold velocity. In other words it's instantly obvious the input and output integrals are fully thermodynamically decoupled to anyone with a basic grasp of classical physics. The context of that quote was from a post actually demonstrating that differential.

Everything is fully annotated, each simulation tested pre-specified predictions, and all tests and conclusions are fully consistent. If you can't follow it, forget it. I'm sure you've much more intersting things going on, nothing to see here..


@Waltzee

You're trying to follow the initial speculation that led to using gravity this way. Using CF instead has not been tested in any way, all the work has been done using gravitating inertias.

You're more than welcome to try using alternative forces if you're comfortable with the principal. The last energy table i posted can be used for any static force field, the formulas are universal, not gravity-specific.

Personally i think the better way to use CF would be a pair of gravity-based designs, balanced 180° opposite one another riding the inner walls of a horizontally-spinning drum - ie. just using CF as 'artificial gravity'. Since the static field does no net work, there should be no drain on the drum's angular momentum, and furthermore it could be driven by the wheels themselves, supercharging the CF in a feedback loop.




@Ralph

Good luck with it, ready to help any way i can, and will post up any designs i think of as they arise.
MrVibrating
Addict
Addict
Posts: 2875
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2010 12:19 am
Location: W3

Re: re: Plying CF as pseudo-inertia to scam N3

Post by MrVibrating »

WaltzCee wrote:Marshmallow prolly crunches more numbers
before breakfast than most do their whole life.
Well if you know of any willing to look at a crazy idea, i'm fair running out of options.

It better have a good grasp of CoE tho or i may end up eating it.


Still, it's the craziest ideas that often make the breakthrough, i like the cut of your jib sir!
User avatar
ME
Addict
Addict
Posts: 3512
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2005 6:37 pm
Location: Netherlands

Re: re: Plying CF as pseudo-inertia to scam N3

Post by ME »

WaltzCee wrote:Marshmallow prolly crunches more numbers
before breakfast than most do their whole life.
LOL. Walter, you're prolly right.
Where did that time go?
Marchello E.
-- May the force lift you up. In case it doesn't, try something else.---
MrVibrating
Addict
Addict
Posts: 2875
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2010 12:19 am
Location: W3

re: Plying CF as pseudo-inertia to scam N3

Post by MrVibrating »

I know he meant you i was just being facetious. :P

I'm now taking tentative steps towards roping in some proper physics-talking dudes ('ahem' - i mean i'm sending crank emails to sane people. There's no sugar-coating it).

By their nature, most aren't gonna wanna touch this with a 10 ft barge pole, so the trick is gonna be finding the slightly unhinged ones...

Hopefully this will confirm my crass mistake / insanity, whichever it is, before anyone wastes too much time on this nonsense..
User avatar
ME
Addict
Addict
Posts: 3512
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2005 6:37 pm
Location: Netherlands

re: Plying CF as pseudo-inertia to scam N3

Post by ME »

I have written down a handful of calculation-attempts all with the intent to replicate your page-11 math. So I'll not waste any time and space showing that boring result. They all fail in one way or the other. That's at least 100 lines (in compacted notation) of useless math...

As a last attempt I tried something weird, and I guess I know how you got your epiphany... It needs some cleaning up, and of yet it doesn't completely match your math: I guess I'll have to redo it a second time. But it does indicate a similar increase like you found. But suspect of being based on something 'unusual'.

So at this moment it appears I'm closing in on either confirming or debunking that theory of yours. I don't know how long that will take.
Marchello E.
-- May the force lift you up. In case it doesn't, try something else.---
MrVibrating
Addict
Addict
Posts: 2875
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2010 12:19 am
Location: W3

Post by MrVibrating »

ME it's the confluence of three axioms:

- an effective asymmetric distribution of momentum can be generated

- resulting momentum rise can be rectified and accumulated over successive cycles

- the input energy cost of momentum is constant, not increasing with rising net velocity

Confirmation of these three conditions amounts to validation, in principle.

Obviously the corollary condition we're also depending upon is KE=1/2mV^2, but its validity is beyond doubt.

Instead of obsessing over a miscalculation of a notional and instantly-discarded quantity with no relevance to the result, you could examine those actual three tests i conducted, rather than subsequent posts about them or spelling mistakes etc. You found a brain fart, i've said repeatedly they're probably there, get over it, i haven't come here with a fully-fledged theory to expound, i've simply laid down some BS to kick-start myself into some research, followed up on some of it and found this. It's a process of discovery, not divine inspiration. If you can find any errors that actually alter the result, then fix them instead of just gloating over it..?

The real coup de grace here is that if you can confirm the N^2 J/kg-m/s constant, then five sequential purchases at that rate yields a final net momentum with higher KE than 5N^2 J, the net work done.

Proving the speed-invariance of the N^2 J/kg-m/s constant proves the existence of the energy gradient...

..and the first rung on the ladder is that 75% loss.

Then followed by just a 50% complete loss.

Then only 25% input irreversibly wasted.

Then unity.

Then 125%...

Prove the ladder, climb to the second rung, and the rest's a fait accompli.

And again, once you've seen it, it instantly becomes obvious that first four rungs can be skipped entirely, proceeding directly to OU without all the ceremony..
Post Reply