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

Post by MrVibrating »

For anyone still battling the initial linear scenario, you may also try inverting it thusly (IIRC someone else pointed this out already, so props wherever due)

- align two 1 kg masses vertically, and give each an initial upwards velocity of 19.62 m/s (two times 9.81).

- release them to fly upwards, whilst applying that 2 G impulse between them for 1 second

Now the upper mass remains in constant motion, at its initial 19.62 m/s.

The lower mass, instead, has been decelerated to stationary, relative to us on the ground.

So the upper mass is moving, the lower one is not. Now connect a piece of string between them, without any slack, switch gravity off and hit 'play'...

You now have a net 'upwards' velocity of 1/2 * 19.62 = 9.81 m/s on both masses - not really 'upwards' since gravity's now disabled, but obviously this is purely an illustrative thought-experiment.

Half of that came from the internally-applied impulse, the other half remaining from the initial input energy.

So 9.81 kg-m/s of it is self-cancelling, leaving a 9.81 kg-m/s unidirectional remainder. Divided between two 1 kg masses, leaves a 4.905 m/s internally-applied acceleration of the net system.

'Disabling gravity', in practice, means following a tangential trajectory thru vertical and into horizontal. The 'piece of string' could be a literal chord, rope or pulley etc., or equally, just a collision between the two asymmetrically-accelerated masses.


Again, the linear case only makes the principal easier to comprehend insofar as gravity is a vertical force, however in practice, we obviously need to be thinking in terms of interacting angular inertias.
Furcurequs
Devotee
Devotee
Posts: 1599
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 4:50 am

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

Post by Furcurequs »

MrVibrating,

Glad you are okay and you didn't fall asleep and have an accident on that motorcycle! Welcome back.

Hopefully the following addresses the problems with your idea. I started typing this up last night.
MrVibrating wrote:
Furcurequs wrote:
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).
Okay, the part I've bolded is absolutely correct. After time T, the lower mass has received all the kinetic energy that was gained from the descent of both masses in the gravitational field plus all the energy that you input to push the two masses apart. So, the energy gain of the lower mass is indeed a function of gmh for both masses, which in this example was 480 Joules, plus the F*d to push them apart, which in this example was 96 Joules.

MrVibrating wrote: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!

Okay, to see what you are neglecting, we need to consider what the total momentum of the two masses together would have been had you not added the energy to push them apart.

In that case both masses would have simply increased their downward velocity by 9.81 m/s during the one second time period. For the 2 kg system, then, that would have meant an increase in momentum of 19.62 kg * m/s.

In the case where you input energy to push the masses apart, however, only the lower mass gained velocity and thus momentum while the upper mass simply maintained its initial downward velocity and momentum.

In both cases we can see that the total momentum increase for the two mass system is exactly the same - 19.62 kg*m/s - and in both cases this is only due to the external force of gravity.

When you did the energy balance, you acknowledged that the lower mass possessed kinetic energy that came from the descent of the upper mass. This means the lower mass has received some kinetic energy that the upper mass would have had had you not pushed them apart.

What you are not acknowledging is that this happens with the momentum, too. The amount of momentum added to the lower mass when the masses are pushed apart is the same as that taken away from the upper mass, for the internal forces of your impulse don't change the total system momentum. The upper mass thus ends up moving more slowly than it would have been moving had you not pushed them apart.

One mass is faster, one mass is slower, and the total momentum of the two masses is unchanged due to the internal forces.

The additional momentum of the lower mass beyond that of it having just fallen on its own was thus not momentum "bought" due to your added energy but rather momentum that was merely "borrowed" from the upper descending mass during the interaction, and that which is borrowed must be returned.

Again, your 96 Joule impulse applies equal magnitude and opposite direction forces to the two masses. Equal magnitude and opposite direction vectors sum to zero, so these forces internal to the two mass system do not change the total momentum, for when you both add and subtract the same number you end up adding nothing.

From your simulation you have the positions and speeds of your masses after the interaction and from these you can calculate the kinetic energies and how much energy is required - needs to be repaid - to return the masses back to their starting points.

Also, remember, there is a height differential between the two masses after you've pushed them apart which must be considered before recombining the two masses.

A full and proper accounting will show that nothing is gained - and with the sort of collision you have described to recombine the masses a great deal of your input energy will be unnecessarily lost. ...and that is on every cycle.

You have based some of your math on a false assumption and so that bit of math doesn't need to be corrected. It needs to be totally discarded.

MrVibrating wrote: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!
Don't lol me! ...lol

I'm saying that all of the increase in momentum of the two mass system on the descent was due to the force of gravity and that (now that I've looked things over) none of it was due to your added energy!

So, again, you are basing some of your math on a false assumption and that bit of math needs to be discarded. Unfortunately, though, it's the bit of math that you seem to be excited about.

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

...but I have indeed found errors and I've been pointing them out to you (as have others), but you are just hand waving away valid criticisms while pretending you know better.

MrVibrating wrote:
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.

You are not properly calculating things because you are pretending that your input energy added to the total momentum when it didn't.

MrVibrating wrote:
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..
Sadly, we're at a point where you don't need to be clarifying your explanations but rather seriously addressing and correcting your mistakes.
MrVibrating wrote: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..
Adding internal energy to the two mass system doesn't change the total momentum of the two mass system. One mass slows, one mass speeds up but the sum total of the momentum remains the same. Only gravity changes the system momentum as the system falls.

Since gravity is responsible for the ENTIRE gain in system momentum on the way down, if we were to reverse directions and send the system back upward, what gravity gave gravity will then take away.

You are trying to reserve a portion of the system momentum that was gained on the way down due to gravity and claiming you would be able to keep it on the way back up (if directions were reversed) - while apparently believing this portion of momentum did not come from gravity but from your applied internal forces/input energy. Because of this misconception, you are doing some funky math that just doesn't really apply.
I don't believe in conspiracies!
I prefer working alone.
User avatar
Gregory
Aficionado
Aficionado
Posts: 566
Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2006 10:33 pm
Location: Europe

re: Plying CF as pseudo-inertia to scam N3

Post by Gregory »

Hey MrV,

I have created an excel table (attached), so others may understand better what are you arguing about. You can check it, and correct the equations as you like. Is this scenario what you have in mind?

I used to design several different momentum manipulator type of wheels between 2011-2015, one time I even pondered about pushing against gravity, but for some reason (I don't remember) I dismissed the idea. I can understand what you have in mind, but I still have doubts about the validity/reality of the math. For example, if the upper weight has to coast through up the ascending side, then gravity must be paid for it as well. This will cause any gain to disappear I think. Perhaps there is a way out of that, I don't know, I am just cautious.

In my opinion the most important point of the concept, that the upper gravitating weight can be used as a "gravitational wall", so it's something to push against, whereas inside a wheel there is usually nothing to push against without causing counter torque. But in this scenario it is possible in a way. So, perhaps this can serve as the salt in the cookbook, or who knows...
Attachments
Gravity-assist-momentum-distr.xls
(24.5 KiB) Downloaded 87 times
Furcurequs
Devotee
Devotee
Posts: 1599
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 4:50 am

re: Plying CF as pseudo-inertia to scam N3

Post by Furcurequs »

I hope MrVibrating is okay. It's been eight weeks since his last post and according to his profile also eight weeks since his last visit.

I believe he dropped by John Collins' blog soon after his last post here to say that he definitely had the answer, and then I think he disappeared from there too.

If you want to relish your inspirations, maybe it's best to just keep them to yourselves like I do with mine, at least for a while, rather than share them publicly for people like me (and others) to pick apart. Of course, I'm so rigorous and hard on myself that you might not be able to pick mine apart - at least I hope that is the case - which of course is the reason I choose not to share publicly. I do need to get back to my experiments, though.

I better save the rest for my rant in the other thread. (Sorry, Marcello, for my procrastination.)

Anyway, hopefully MrVibrating is out there somewhere looking for somebody he can convince.
I don't believe in conspiracies!
I prefer working alone.
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 »

Furcurequs wrote:Sorry, Marchello, for my procrastination.)
Today I'm not on procrastrination patrol!
I have more distracting things to do.
But why do you think I was ever?

Let's hope all your unplanned exercises
bring your much joy and new insights.


Now please pay attention:
https://youtu.be/iTboKWWuaSY?t=229
Marchello E.
-- May the force lift you up. In case it doesn't, try something else.---
User avatar
cloud camper
Devotee
Devotee
Posts: 1083
Joined: Tue Mar 15, 2011 12:20 am

re: Plying CF as pseudo-inertia to scam N3

Post by cloud camper »

I like Mr V and his willingness to show everything he's got.

Of course when you take that path the peanut gallery shows up in full force.

I guess when you're the messiah you're going to take a few licks to see if you can really take the heat!
Furcurequs
Devotee
Devotee
Posts: 1599
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 4:50 am

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

Post by Furcurequs »

ME wrote:
Furcurequs wrote:Sorry, Marchello, for my procrastination.)
Today I'm not on procrastrination patrol!
I have more distracting things to do.
But why do you think I was ever?

Let's hope all your unplanned exercises
bring your much joy and new insights.


Now please pay attention:
https://youtu.be/iTboKWWuaSY?t=229
Have I procrastinated for so long that you've forgotten?! ...lol

You said this in raj's "Familiarity breeds contempt..." thread:
ME wrote:I really look forward to Furcurequs's rant :-)
http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewt ... 680#156680
I don't believe in conspiracies!
I prefer working alone.
User avatar
Gregory
Aficionado
Aficionado
Posts: 566
Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2006 10:33 pm
Location: Europe

Post by Gregory »

I hated to be the topic killer...
Most of the time Mr V has a really original way of looking at things. I hoped he'll simply correct the excel, and come back with some genius solution of his. Perhaps, he was just carried himself too far away down the rabbit hole? Also happens to me lots of times...
Now please pay attention:
https://youtu.be/iTboKWWuaSY?t=229
Doodling is really great! When I decide to go deeper, I always start with doodling.
User avatar
cloud camper
Devotee
Devotee
Posts: 1083
Joined: Tue Mar 15, 2011 12:20 am

re: Plying CF as pseudo-inertia to scam N3

Post by cloud camper »

Again, I enjoy hearing and discussing Mr V's ideas but why do these self declared saviour types get so incensed and storm off in a huff before committing an ounce of energy to a physical proof of concept?

These messiah personalities just seem to assume that because they come up with a novel idea the physical universe must automatically bend to their wishes and everyone else is a moron or troll for not appreciating true insight!
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 »

Furcurequs wrote:Have I procrastinated for so long that you've forgotten?! ...lol

You said this in raj's "Familiarity breeds contempt..." thread:
ME wrote:I really look forward to Furcurequs's rant :-)
Furcurequs, oh thanks for mentioning...
Oh man, I can't even remember how many things I forgot. But glad you restrengthen that neglected pathway.
Anywho, where is it? And I'm still not doing procrastination patrol... but hurry up, before I forget again :-)

I personally like long rants, as long as they're not personal.
They usually show an interesting stream of thought and perhaps not always entirely correct but at least seemingly coherent.
Mr V is a master of streams, they usually make good reads. Not rants per se, but streams they are.
Let's hope he comes back again.
cloud camper wrote:Again, I enjoy hearing and discussing Mr V's ideas but why do these self declared saviour types get so incensed and storm off in a huff before committing an ounce of energy to a physical proof of concept?

These messiah personalities just seem to assume that because they come up with a novel idea the physical universe must automatically bend to their wishes and everyone else is a moron or troll for not appreciating true insight!
It just came to mind somehow: It's because the chances are high that familiarity breeds contempt.

You'll know the secret ingredients and the driving force behind a secret principle by observing what comes out of it when it breaks (that's just how things are properly tested): some parts scientific curiosity versus some parts emotional desire.
We all hope the remainder still contains more scientific value and fragments of inspiration and not so much dripping with defensive reactions.

I speculate that mrV was caught by his own surprise when he did some calculations with unit numbers...
As far as I'm concerned:
-- Never ever use unit numbers to calculate the proof you're looking for, and
-- Never ever extrapolate a single linear calculation to proof an exponential point, and
-- Always do a dimensional analysis on newly invented formulas.
I suspect those were the main issues I had in this thread.

The rest could be blamed on the flow of enthusiasm.
Let's call it: added flavor.
Marchello E.
-- May the force lift you up. In case it doesn't, try something else.---
User avatar
Senax
Devotee
Devotee
Posts: 1007
Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2018 7:26 pm

Post by Senax »

Grimer wrote:
eccentrically1 wrote:Don't worry, I've been there and done that, and I'm already at the finish line, lol.
Ooo! I am glad to hear that. I have the finishing line in sight but I'm only at it in theory..... and nobody believes theory apart from the originator. :-)
In the time Mr V has been on holiday, hopefully, not in a broken bones ward :-), I have finally solved the "little bit pregnant" puzzle I referred to earlier in this thread. I've put the relevant bit below.
Grimer wrote:Your mention of mass transfer between contra rotating wheels relates to a 2nd January 2017, post in the Flippin' Flywheels thread.
It reminds me of the Vesica Pisces I presented to that rancorous bunch of cynics on Not the Steorn Forum to the usual howls of derision at my posts.

To my surprise and delight on of more thoughtful members said
"Grimer is right. I have made a computer simulation and there is a small gain in energy."

I thought, if he is correct then PM has been achieved. The amount of energy is irrelevant. You can't be a little bit pregnant,
...
To my great satisfaction I find the the solution is a BOGOF. In other words it is possible to get twice as much energy out as you put in.

Not up to Bessler standard of lifting 4 pounds with 1 pound - but well on the way.
AVE MARIA, gratia plena, Dominus tecum.
Ô Marie, conçue sans péché, priez pour nous qui avons recours à vous.
Post Reply