Not sure i follow - certainly you can push off from the earth, but only the once.. you can't take it with you to keep pushing against later on..Grimer wrote:What about using the earth as a reaction mass and don't share the same axis?MrVibrating wrote:Pendulums: use them as reaction mass, and they swing up to some apex, then turn around and come right back at you.
Useless for a linearly-accelerated mass, because you end up flying away from the pendulum. One shot deal.
But not if we're accelerating a vertical wheel, sharing the same axle as the pendulum.
...
The whole point here is that normally, to use something as reaction mass implies its speed and thus distance, relative to you, is going to increase... so if you want to keep pushing against it, the energy cost per successive units of acceleration is going to escalate as the square of your rising relative velocity; or to put it the other way, the amount of acceleration each additional Joule of energy will buy is constantly diminishing... and by colossal amounts.
As you start out, the first Joule you spend will buy you 2 meters / sec per kg, but thereafter, as your velocity rises, you'll get less and less acceleration per Joule, until eventually you won't even be able to detect any change..
The difference with a pendulum and rotor is that their relative velocity is a function of time; all else being equal (inertias in particular), from either one's point of view, sometimes the other mass is moving, but sometimes it's stationary.
This, regardless of the net system's speed and energy.
If that condition can be maintained as net velocity increases, then output energy evolves normally via the usual relationship (half the moment of inertia times the RPM squared), while input energy remains a fixed function of the lower relative velocity change between the two masses.
So whether the net system is rocking gently at 30 CPS or smoking its bearings at 500 RPM, so long as the energy is input while the two masses are stationary relative to one another, as far as they're concerned their relative KE is a small constant oscillation.
It's a naff analogy, but the exploit here is to try to scam the special introductory one-time-only offer by re-joining the back of the queue in a ropey disguise. The masses are always stationary relative to each other, so we get the same, maximal bang for our buck, even though the net speed is increasing to an energy value fifty times greater than what we've input.
A stator would be bound to Earth. Pushing against a stator is pushing against the Earth. Bessler's wheels were statorless. Whether Bessler's exploit had anything to do with pendulums or N3, we can only guess. But pushing against any kind of stator is going to incur the very same 50-fold escalation of input energy that i'm trying to circumvent here. No-stators is the whole point. They're just a rip off.
KE=1/2MV^2... basically compound interest on velocity. But as everyone should be able to see by now, the only practical measure enforcing this rate of return is Newton's 3rd law.
If N3 can be outfoxed, then KE can also be equal to P, as in MV. If the internal displacment isn't increasing per cycle, then neither is its cost. But externally, 1/2MV^2 still holds, and any disunity is fair game.
Said it before, will say it again (and expect to have to keep doing so) - none of this is going to make any sense until the reader works out for themselves why mechanical conservation of energy depends upon Newton's 3rd law; i'm not suggesting it exclusively relies on it - obviously the regular field symmetries are just as important in their roles. But then again we've been throwing everything we've got at them since forever and made nary a dent. Whereas, the role of N3 in enforcing CoE tends to receive much less attention.
Which is a shame, as it just might be the Achilles heel we've all been looking for.
So to anyone not quite following yet, take a step back, suppose for a moment you can freely switch a mass's inertia on and off at will... How would you go about generating free energy from that? There's no need to post an answer here, but you should reach an "aha!" moment. The trick is to repeat it several times - it begins as a non-zero net momentum, which in turn accumulates additively with successive interactions. You will then see that only the internal displacements are paid for - the rising acceleration of the net system is free, to the extent that 1 unit of energy internally can be worth five or fifty externally - depending only on the magnitude of the internal / external velocity difference.
But real N3 breaks are impossible, because of mass constancy.
So what i'm trying to do is come up with simple mechanical systems which simulate the same end-result as an N3 break, without actually having one. Whether or not Nature can detect such brazen fraudulence remains to be seen.. but CoE only applies instantaneously - it can't know, care, nor change anything about the future or past, and likewise if two masses are stationary relative to eachother then their speed relative to anything else is wholly irrelevant to their cost of mutual acceleration.
There's no question that linear N3 breaks can be leveraged to create energy. The only question here is whether a virtual one in a rotating system is sufficiently equivalent.
All current forms of motor depend upon the Earth as reaction mass, from your car to your blender. But Bessler's wheels were visibly statorless, and he denied hiding any internally - insisting that, on the contrary, in a true PM, everything must, of necessity, go around together.
Judge for youself... he said stators were non-starters (and likewise, juggling weights); ergo stators = reaction mass = N3 = bad...
The prime mover we should all be looking for is an effective N3 exception.
