Inertial Mass Energy Generator?

[KHAN2012]

Just kicking around some ideas here with regards to the possibility of overunity generation from centripetal and/or gyroscopic momentum forces.



The basic idea is to construct a wheel with an inner section where the heavy[red] ball bearings can spin as the rotating wheel forces them to the outer edge as the wheel picks up momentum.

Of course all forces would quckly become symmetricized and I don't see how extra energy could be obtained. Possibly though some sort of asymmetric and consequent overunity relationship could be evident with a little brainstorming, yes.

The wheel might need to be positioned horizonantally to maximize the spinning ball-bearing energies.

[KHAN2012]

The law of conservation of energy, is, a symmetry law. In order to generate a perceived perpetual motion - the symmetry must be broken.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banach%E2% ... ki_paradox

The Banach–Tarski paradox is a theorem in set theoretic geometry which states that a solid ball in 3-dimensional space can be split into a finite number of non-overlapping pieces, which can then be put back together in a different way to yield two identical copies of the original ball. The reassembly process involves only moving the pieces around and rotating them, without changing their shape. However, the pieces themselves are complicated: they are not usual solids but infinite scatterings of points. A stronger form of the theorem implies that given any two "reasonable" objects (such as a small ball and a huge ball), either one can be reassembled into the other. This is often stated colloquially as "a pea can be chopped up and reassembled into the Sun".

[...]

The reason the Banach–Tarski theorem is called a paradox is because it contradicts basic geometric intuition. "Doubling the ball" by dividing it into parts and moving them around by rotations and translations, without any stretching, bending, or adding new points, seems to be impossible, since all these operations preserve the volume, but the volume is doubled in the end.


...

[KHAN2012]

A rotating disc would be observed to have a relativistic mass increase and a relativistic length contracton mainly on its outer edge of equatorial rotation, of course. It would need to be rotating significantly fast in order for a truly measurable relativistic effect though.

I am wondering if there may be special circumstances where inertial mass is greater than gravitational mass with regards to rotational and/or gyroscopic motion?

[KHAN2012]

Interesting...

http://www.aero2012.com/en/movingbeyond ... ette.mhtml

3. The First Law of Thermodynamics is not inviolable.

The First Law of Thermodynamics states that energy may be neither created nor destroyed. But there is evidence that nature routinely violates the First Law.

Energy creation: The discovery that the jovian planets (Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune) lie along the same luminosity trend line as stars of the lower main sequence (e.g. red dwarfs) throws a monkey wrench into theories of how stars generate their energy. Nuclear energy cannot explain this correspondence. One very simple solution to this problem is that a photon's energy is not constant, that photon's inside celestial bodies slowly blue shift – increase their energy over time. Thus energy is being continuously created in stars throughout the universe. This so called "genic energy" emerges as a prediction of a new physics methodology called subquantum kinetics. Since red dwarfs make up most of the stars in our Galaxy, as a rule genic energy may be the dominant energy creation mechanism. Nuclear energy becomes important only in the much rarer, massive stars such as our Sun. Consequently, most of the stars in the universe may be run on "free energy" in violation of the First Law.

Although this rate of energy creation is ten orders of magnitude smaller than what can be detected in laboratory experiments, it nonetheless weakens the arguments of those who maintain that the First Law is an inviolable doctrine of nature. If nature violates it, why can't we violate it also? Physics needs to make a major shift in thinking, shed their linear models which predict that there is no such thing as a free lunch, and embrace the newly emerging nonlinear models which allow the possibility that matter and energy may be created and destroyed.

[KHAN2012]

An interesting effect that could be used to transfer some extra momentum and consequently add some extra impetus to the self rotating wheel.

The coriolis effect:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coriolis_force



By forcing a ball bearing to follow a straight path due to the construction of the inside of the wheel, the constrained curved path[acceleration] would transer some extra momentum to the ball bearing, allowing for extra energy for subsequent rotations...

[KHAN2012]

Newton's third law basically says:

Action = Reaction

This looks like a symmetry law.

What if special circumstances permit the symmetry to be broken ...then the law would change under that set of special conditions...

Action > Reaction

or

Action < Reaction


Energy would then be "created" from that broken symmetry.

I found this interesting bit of information:

http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/courses/cla ... ravity.htm

In 1973, British scientist and inventor Eric Laithwaite unveiled upon an offended Royal Institution audience what he purported to be a violation of Newton’s Third Law of Motion: it produced a force without a reaction. The invention was a result of a meeting with young inventor Alex Jones who showed him a box on wheels with a pendulum that swung back and forth. Laithwaite was intrigued as he watched the trolley-like device move across a bench-top without any thrust or torque applied to the wheels. He then performed his own experiments with gyroscopes and found a similar effect. When invited to speak at the Royal Institution based on his exceptional work in electrical engineering and pioneer work on transportation using magnetic levitation, he decided to give a demonstration of his work with gyroscopes. He created a large gyroscope by putting a motorcycle wheel on a three-foot pole, powered by a small electric motor. It took Laithwaite both arms and all his strength to lift the fifty pound apparatus above his waist-level. After turning the motor on, however, he was able to effortlessly lift the gyroscope above his head with a single hand. As news of his claims spread, the press touted him to have “defied Newton� and to have built and antigravity machine. Outraged at this scientific heresy, the Royal Institution refused to publish his paper and completely detached itself from Laithwaite. Despite the hostile rebuff he received, he continued to study gyroscopes for the next twenty years. In the early 1990s, Laithwaite finally found an explanation to the phenomena he observed.

He found that a precessing gyroscope produces mass transfer, and therefore actually doesn’t contradict Newton’s Third Law or defy gravity.

He finally proved for himself what he had believed for decades. Laithwaite died in 1997, his prototype for the reaction-less drive unfinished.

Can someone explain what Professor Laithwaite meant by the term "mass transfer"?

Thank you

[mindsweeper]

His method was with gyroscopes.

The real breakthrough came, said Laithwaite, when they realised that a precessing gyroscope could move mass through space. 'The spinning top showed us that all the time, but we couldn't see it. If the gyroscope does not produce the full amount of centrifugal force on its pivot in the centre then indeed you have produced mass transfer.'

Full article here

http://www.rense.com/general42/genius.htm

[KHAN2012]

Mass transfer seems to require an anchor of some sort.

"Wheels within wheels" comes to mind. Several smaller gyroscopic entities strategically placed within the larger Bessler wheel - gyro, could give the unbalanced perpetual torque required for the unlimited work performance we seek.

[Grimer]

The Keenie motor has a wheel within a wheel. Once someone gets round to building one with the right angular momentum relationship between the two wheels we should have "the unlimited work performance we seek".

[KHAN2012]

Thank you for the clue Grimer

http://keelytech.com/bessler/pop/perpetual.html

[Grimer]

Thank you for the clue Grimer

http://keelytech.com/bessler/pop/perpetual.html

If you want an even better clue as to how and why it works go to my blog.
You seem to have enough scientific competence (judging from your posts) to understand the significance of the conservation of angular momentum.

I don't know how widespread the belief is on this forum that it isn't conserved but I seem to recollect that at least one person denied it.

[KHAN2012]

Of course angular momentum is conserved, until the symmetry is broken, if, it can be broken

[rlortie]

Objects executing motion around a point possess a quantity called angular momentum. This is an important physical quantity because all experimental evidence indicates that angular momentum is rigorously conserved in our Universe: it can be transferred[/b], but it cannot be created or destroyed. For the simple case of a small mass executing uniform circular motion around a much larger mass (so that we can neglect the effect of the center of mass) the amount of angular momentum takes a simple form. As the adjacent figure illustrates the magnitude of the angular momentum in this case is L = mvr, where L is the angular momentum, m is the mass of the small object, v is the magnitude of its velocity, and r is the separation between the objects.
Ice Skaters and Angular Momentum
This formula indicates one important physical consequence of angular momentum: because the above formula can be rearranged to give v = L/(mr) and L is a constant for an isolated system, the velocity v and the separation r are inversely correlated. Thus, conservation of angular momentum demands that a decrease in the separation r be accompanied by an increase in the velocity v, and vice versa. This important concept carries over to more complicated systems: generally, for rotating bodies, if their radii decrease they must spin faster in order to conserve angular momentum. This concept is familiar intuitively to the ice skater who spins faster when the arms are drawn in, and slower when the arms are extended; although most ice skaters don't think about it explictly, this method of spin control is nothing but an invocation of the law of angular momentum conservation.

http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect ... ngmom.html

For the sake of clarity, when looked upon in the form of a gravity wheel, angular momentum converted from symmetrical to asymmetrical and gravitational potential energy is added somehting is going to turn.

Ralph

[Grimer]

For the sake of clarity, when looked upon in the form of a gravity wheel, angular momentum converted from symmetrical to asymmetrical and gravitational potential energy is added something is going to turn.

Whilst on the subject of angular momentum it seems appropriate to paste my latest blog entry here since it has a bearing on the research you carried out on the Keenie wheel.

===============================================
+IHM+IHM+

The above figure shows the layout of a optimally designed Keenie wheel. I have exaggerated the distance apart of the blue and red tracks for the weights so that their progress can more easily be seen. Keenie used gravity to switch tracks because it was a simple method. I'm sure a mechanical engineer will provide a more efficient method.

I doubt if the historic wheel is optimally designed since I doubt if Pop Keenie appreciated the importance of precisely matching the angular momentum of the blue wheel without weights and the red wheel with weights.

It seems more likely to me that he got there by a process of trial and error.

With matched wheels the "fighting" against each other can be taken up by a torque tube or rod with the blue wheel mounted at one end and the red at the other. This torque will spin the whole assembly if not restrained by a brake or generator on the end of the axle.

I know this seems terribly counter-intuitive and I wouldn't believe it myself except for two things.

1) I've approached the problem for a different direction, the Vesica Pisces design, where it is much easier to see what is going on.

2) We can be fairly confident that the Keenie wheel worked from the evidence that has been gathered by docfeelsgood and others. Doc even has remnants of the wheel.
===============================================

In your research did you measure and arrange the angular momentum of the two wheel components to be in the same relationship as in the Vesica design?

If you did I cannot understand why you were not successful in achieving a running wheel.

[rlortie]

Grimer,

I am sorry if you do not understand why I did not achieve a running wheel. After three years of trial and error i do not understand it either.

I see no relation to your Vesica Pisces depiction. in fact counting the weights and gullets in you drawing here, I see no relation to Doc's wheel. You say it is an optimal design. What is the gearing ratio?

You show seven lifting on the outside wheel being lifted by four on the inner with one in transition. What is your pitch diameter of both the inner and outer gullet spacing?

Check your leverage ratios and you will find that you cannot lift 50% more than is falling even at twice the speed, believe me it has been tried.

Ralph