MTM5

[MrVibrating]

So inadvertently, the gain is once again behaving exactly as the core hypothesis describes.. even though i didn't actually set out to test that aspect.

Vicariously, it also explains why we can't simply coordinate the same actions the kiiking rotor's undergoing forcibly, as by giving it its own motor, since this too will be grounding it to the wheel and external / absolute FoR, thus maintaining energy equivalence between internal and external velocity frames. The components that become OU must be free-wheeling, away in their own little FoR.

Furthermore it explains why the wheel motor is successful in harnessing the divergent inertial frame without destroying it; because we're applying the KE gain to torque against the motor/generator not through direct transmission, but via the intermediary of inertial torque courtesy of the ice-skater effect - effectively 'beaming' the energy gain between inertially-isolated velocity frames that never actually come into physical contact..

The reason we're in the game is because we're playing by the rules of OU!

Dare i say it, but over-unity physics is no longer out-of-box theory, but legitimate and accomplished science..

..and it's over-unity mechanics, of all things.. no magnets, electricity.. not even gravity. We're harnessing zero-point energy by waving a lump of mass around. Literally. Plus, it's also a propellentless thruster, able to get us to the stars (albeit still incurring time-dilation). Also useful for climate control / terraforming if you wanna tweak a planet's resting momentum state..

Ladies, gentlemen, alphabet-people and dodecaploids: we seem to be hitting pay-dirt..!

[Tarsier79]

Ok, lets say our motors are 95% efficient. Can we physically build your sim, and can we harvest the OU?

[Fletcher]

Thinking ahead, perhaps a suggestion for total transparency sake ? .. especially as you say w. imbedded IF statements and multiple motor velocity controllers incorporating the spaceship ..

Break down the e.g. Kikker Motor Velocity Controller INPUT (etc), and list them i.e. turning OUTPUT data into INPUT data .. so its easier for non-sim users to see the equations and follow ..

e.g. below is a pic in WM - I've taken the 2 Kikker Motor Velocity Control Equations you've used so far - and I've made a > Measure Time Output Box and altered it into an INPUT data Box for the Motor Velocity Control Equation .. y3 goes in the motor velocity etc ..

...............

[MrVibrating]

Mate, just looking at equations makes my eyes bleed..

I've given all the equations already in plain English - which is how i approach writing them in the first place. I try not to think anything mathematical, just transcribing the words into the familiar jargon, the logical rules right there in the sentence. Things tend to get nested when i come back and add more functions over the top - and i still get lost in parentheses sometimes - but that's the basic process.

For a recap however:

• the kiiking weight is spun up to a target speed during descent, reaching peak velocity at the horizontal, and zero relative speed at the vertical. It's spun forward when descending, to cause that counter-torque to slow the descent, and then spun backwards when rising to speed the ascent. The per-cycle momentum gain is thus equal to the ±F*t asymmetry - exactly the same concept as ±G-time, only now it's 'G-force' - your basic kiiking principle, and in this way the kiiking rotor continually gains and accumulates angular momentum from CF force and time over successive cycles. The rotational KE of this momentum is over-unity, and this KE gain is then harnessed into PE by resisting the wheel's angular acceleration from the positive inertial torque (the ice-skater effect) when the weight's rising back inwards.

That's it, the whole interaction, but please be mindful that we probably don't want to encourage or facilitate irresponsible construction of clearly-polluting systems!

Moreover, i can't be dealing with the barrage of cargo-cult 'replicators' who'll invariably ignore all patiently-explained technical details and then expect to be spoon-fed the answers to why their attempts are falling short..

Don't wanna be a dick about it but under the circumstances i think we can all appreciate this needs scientific, before hobbyist, attentions.. It's not a free-energy panacea without conscientious operation!

[MrVibrating]

So here's a first try at a sustainable config, safe for terrestrial use:




1 cycle:
initial KE = 28.13068142
final KE = 38.65658857
KE delta = +10.52590715
net P*t = 9.047822595
unaccounted = +1.478084555


10 cycles:
initial KE = 28.13087534
final KE = 77.49769833
KE delta = +49.36682299
net P*t = 34.54708602
unaccounted = +14.81973697


Currently has a low gain with the default settings, but it's scaling correctly, and basically infinitely adjustable - all the radii are configurable via linear actuators controlled for length - i couldn't get inputs to work consistently on them for now, but you can just click and change their properties without issue. So it should be possible to replicate the CoP's of the previous rig, and then some..

More importantly, it just wobbles when floated. In principle we could even try flight-testing it at some point, vectoring that linear component, but for now all stray forces are mutually cancelled. There's no hard-sync (could be tricky to do that whilst maintaining inertial isolation), so at present their coordination is basically coincidental. But it's replicating the effect, in tandem, in a scratch-build.

Looking forward to having a play with it tomorrow..!

[MrVibrating]

The single greatest piece of advice i can give to anyone genuinely interested in following the developments is to grasp the concept of a divergent inertial reference frame; view the world as comprised of myriad little springs, yet all conserving N3 at every scale, and thus anchoring everything into the same, 'absolute' reference frame. For most types of interactions, your PE and KE are both, ultimately, in that same, unitary FoR. Energy equivalence between velocity FoR's is enforced by N3.

Thus you cannot attain OU by pushing or pulling against some other mass or inertia. You have to gain momentum unilaterally, without inertial interaction, and then continue to maintain that inertially-isolated state whilst accumulating that momentum, which in turn has the potential to facilitate OU efficiencies. The isolated state still has to be maintained when harnessing, hence why the ice-skater effect works - it's non-contact - so we're basically raising and culturing an aberrant momentum state that breaks energy equivalence with all other velocity frames, and then making it perform useful work, in this case reverse-torquing a motor but in principle, winding a spring or raising water etc.

Conservation of energy is not a fundamental law, but arises through happenstance of N3, reciprocity of momentum and counter-momentum enforcing N1 and thus energy equivalence between different velocity frames. There's nothing in the laws of physics to prohibit over-unity, and never has been. CoE is an almost circumstantial epiphenomenon of the more-fundamental - but still not inviolable or immutable - rules of CoM (basically N1, 2 & 3).

Same drum i've been banging forever..

[MrVibrating]

(Yawn) Mornin' all..

..here's the very first variation i've tried, over me coffee and fag:



Radius of main arms doubled from 0.75 to 1.5 m

initial KE = 37.14764043
final KE = 51.71611563
KE delta = +14.5684752
kiiking motors P*t = 6.98169393
motogens P*t = 4.631870495
net P*t = 11.61356442
unaccounted = +2.95491078


..notice the gain here remains entirely in the form of KE!

It thus now becomes readily apparent that the proportion of KE gain harvested by the inbound inertial torque is dependent upon the kiiking radius relative to that of the wheel; with the short stubby kiiking radius above not ingressing far enough inwards to offload all of its KE gain.

This in turn provides an optimisation variable as regards how much gain is creamed off for harnessing, a way of throttling the interaction to maintain or govern it..

For example, we could tune for a config that offloads precisely all of its KE gain per cycle, thus limiting acceleration of the kiiking action, stabilising performance over time..

But as previously noted, being able to study the gain whilst it's still in the form of KE means we can also study and quantify the FoR divergence - the anomalous momentum delta corresponding to the energy gain; where you can measure KE, you can likewise also measure p, specifically its velocity component, and it is this, after all, that is actually manifesting and embodying the gain..

..and in principle we can crank that window open arbitrarily wide with this rig, so boosting this empirical anomalous velocity component for emphasis and closer study; the point being that you're then correlating the energy gain with this concrete momentum anomaly..

[MrVibrating]

..derp - face-palm moment - if we wanna end each run with the gain left in its kinematic state - ie. along with its corresponding anomalous momentum delta - then all we need to do is add a switchable control to allow realeasing the wheel axis during the final inbound / upstroke.. IOW, to not brake that motion away, grounding the momentum anomaly and rendering the gain's provenance opaque..

There's no particular reason we need to harness it immediately, we can just free the wheel axis following the outbound stroke / drop, then we'll only have input work in the input integrals, and output work in the form of KE and dodgy momentum..

The thing's simpler than i've been making it out to be..

[JUBAT]

I think you may have stumbled upon something. As you study it and break it down and then break it down even further, I think we'll all be surprised at how simple it actually turned out to be.

[Fletcher]

For Reference purposes .. I'm catching up on threads and thought it might be useful here - I pulled this from Pg38 of dax's running topic on B's. possible afflatus ..

ChatGPT: In a physics simulation, if there is an error or inaccuracy in the numerical integration or calculation of a physical quantity like gravitational potential energy (GPE), it doesn't necessarily reset the GPE to its maximum value. Instead, the simulation would typically attempt to correct the error and continue from the current state.

Here's how it generally works:

Numerical Integration: Physics simulations often use numerical integration methods to update the state of the system over time. These methods involve dividing time into small time steps and calculating how physical quantities change during each time step. Errors can accumulate during this process due to the discrete nature of the calculations.

Error Correction: If errors are detected in the simulation (e.g., due to numerical inaccuracies or limitations in the simulation algorithm), there are techniques to correct or reduce these errors. These techniques may involve adjusting the time step size, using more accurate numerical integration methods, or implementing error-correcting algorithms.

Continuous Simulation: Simulations aim to provide a continuous representation of physical phenomena. They strive to maintain the accuracy of physical quantities like energy (including GPE) throughout the simulation. This means that if there is an error at a particular time step, the simulation will work to correct it to ensure that the physical laws and principles are upheld as closely as possible.

Conservation of Energy: In physics simulations, the principle of the conservation of energy is a fundamental concept. This principle states that the total energy in a closed system remains constant unless acted upon by external forces. Therefore, even if errors occur in the simulation, the total energy (including GPE) should ideally be conserved over time.

Stability: Ensuring the stability of a simulation is crucial. If errors accumulate and become too significant, it can lead to instability in the simulation, and the results may not accurately represent the physical system being modeled.

In summary, in physics simulations, errors are addressed and corrected to maintain the integrity of the simulation. The simulation strives to uphold physical principles like the conservation of energy while minimizing numerical inaccuracies. It doesn't reset GPE to its maximum value; instead, it works to maintain the accuracy of physical quantities throughout the simulation.

viewtopic.php?p=202309#p202309

Premise .. System KE (as metered, in the screen FOR) shows to be greater than the Net motor energy transformed to that very KE of motion ..

............

ETA .. fwiw a sim motor is a 'constraint' that applies a torque between 2 bodies - it is not a physical entity with mass and inertia itself, wherein the real world it does ..

[Tarsier79]

ETA .. fwiw a sim motor is a 'constraint' that applies a torque between 2 bodies - it is not a physical entity with mass and inertia itself, wherein the real world it does .

.

Firstly, I still don't have my head around where the energy is.... Regardless:

So measuring the motor force x rotation is measuring the rotation compared to what it is attached to, not the absolute rotation? Is this where the anomaly lies? Or is it because we need to account for both ROT KE and the transverse KE?

Can we use WM2D's built in power calculator for the energy of the rotating body instead of clculating it.

[MrVibrating]

A 'motor' is comprised of two point elements, one attached to each of the joined bodies either side of the motor sandwich, and angular displacement of the motor is thus relative to these two point elements, moreso than whatever they're attached to; the sim records states of motion of massive bodies, but not of these motor point elements, hence why you get spikes when restarting an edited interaction that was otherwise running smoothly, as the point elements rapidly rotate to catch up with the angles of the masses they're attached to. Other constraints such as rotary springs do conserve their displacement angles.

In the current sims the motors being used to extract torque * angle plots are recording their own rotations vs the torques on them. The 'power' meters are using the force * velocity formula, integrated over time. Both metrics are equivalent, and we've not seen any disagreements between them so far.

The only framework for comprehending OU in a non-conflicted way is this concept of a divergent inertial frame; that is, one proceeding without inertial interaction with its environment. This is a practical necessity for cultivating and harnessing the momentum anomaly that substantiates a KE gain.

Because a body can only have precisely the right amount of KE as a function of its inertia and velocity, there can be no such thing as 'excess' KE; the only option is thus a PE discount. OU exploits the quadratic nature of the relationship between energy and velocity, by essentially spoofing a lower-than-actual velocity, to accumulate momentum at a discounted energy cost; as a crude but illustrative example, the minimum energy cost of accelerating 1 kg or 1 kg-m² by 1 m/s or 1 rad/s respectively is 0.5 J, so if we could maintain that over say ten successive accelerations we'd end up at a net speed of 10 m/s or 10 rad/s, for a net outlay of 10 * 0.5 J = 5 J.. ten times less than the 50 J of KE the body would actually have at that point.

This is why i talk about this notional magic lever that would cause the same acceleration of the cart each pull - doesn't seem that controversial, yet would be OU on the second pull. The same reason i switched to using angular inertias as the input workload, instead of relying only on work done against CF force - because MoI is speed-invariant, 1 kg-m² is always 1 kg-m², no matter how fast you may already be turning.

So in summary, if you can buy momentum at a cheaper rate than its standard value in the ground or absolute reference frame, you see the difference as KE gain. And this is what we're seeing here..

[MrVibrating]

Spent this evening trying to optimise without increasing radius, so just tuning MoI's, spin-up speed and weight, aiming for the best single-cycle CoP without piling on tons of mass:


LOL if you saw that running in a workshop you'd never guess what it was actually doing..


1 cycle:
initial KE = 7.44192392
final KE = 26.35820288
KE delta = +18.91627896
k P*t = 43.852752
m P*t = -66.35708068
net in = 43.852752
net out = 85.27335964
CoP = 1.94


5 cycles:
initial KE = 7.44138822
final KE = 105.85274342
KE delta = +98.4113552
k P*t = 150.5529299
m P*t = -259.236994
net in = 150.5529299
net out = 357.6483492
CoP = 2.38


10 cycles:
initial KE = 7.44225291
final KE = 187.82830265
KE delta = +180.38604974
k P*t = 249.4194094
m P*t = -483.4784624
net in = 249.4194094
net out = 663.86451214
CoP = 2.66

Higher radii give better CoP's, but as you can see it improves with runtime regardless.

I got rid of the combined P*t meter as it gives misleading impressions when one of the integrals goes negative, and besides we want to know what's doing what and when..

The 'free-wheeling finish' is just for configs aiming to render the gains as KE rather than PE (ie. high radius ratios).

Literally taken a hundred integrals today, every one of 'em OU. Sick of looking at 'em..

[MrVibrating]

Ok, lets say our motors are 95% efficient. Can we physically build your sim, and can we harvest the OU?

LOL good luck with that..

I'd wait a few weeks or months, see what comes of it first. I'm waiting to see something fall out i can build (or even just sim) using springs or weights instead of motors. What you see so far however is just clinical torque times angle - the range of things that might provide those torques is limited only by the imagination.

Note that there's no requirement to harness the gains as torque times angle (such as by winding a spring, or turning an Archimedes screw etc. etc. - torque is torque after all); that's just how it panned out here, but mech OU means KE in the first instance. That's what the 'motors' here are actually harnessing.

The gain's emerging as KE on the green and blue axes, and then being transferred to the central axis by the ice-skater effect - moving mass inwards speeds up the rotation, the motor resists that acceleration as it's set to hold a constant speed (to regulate CF), and so absorbs the gains.

I do mean it when i say any working wheels have to be built as synced pairs though.. Watch the float test result from a few pages back if you don't believe me..

[Fletcher]

I do mean it when i say any working wheels have to be built as synced pairs though.. Watch the float test result from a few pages back if you don't believe me..

Hey MrV .. I was thinking about that the other day - with the un-mirrored setup i.e. your original 'float'-test .. the big wheel is anchored by the central motor (regardless of FOR) i.e. motors act as pin joints to the background as well as motors IINM .. could you attach it say to a free-in-space (floating) backboard or some such (gravity off) ..

I was thinking that if there were stray torques the whole shebang would jostle about at the very least I would imagine and in some FOR we should detect that ?

.............

I think T79 is beginning to think of practical ways to implement a build to test out the hypothesis in the real-world .. which would sooner or later become a requirement to move from theory to fact over and above a bound to be argued about sim result ..