Flippin' Flywheels

[sleepy]

We must keep in mind that we continue to refer to, and base our arguments on, a translation that is probably a best-guess scenario. One word or phrase misinterpreted could change the entire meaning of the whole paragraph.So before we start arguing over what Bessler meant, we must first admit that maybe we don't really know what he meant.

[MrVibrating]

Been meaning to post updates this last week but each time i begin i end up thinking what's the point in meticulously documenting every last false assumption and wrong turn? I keep coming up with ingeniously-elaborate ways of ignoring basic logic, and it's all so much chaff..

But there IS a kernel of consistency emerging from all this flapping about, and the hypothesis seems to be lumbering forwards still.

I have something promising that seems worth sharing...


But before that, in the best traditions of PM failure, here's a couple of slightly less intelligent ideas:

- the overly-literalistic Mersburg-derived penduwheel i last posted does nothing at all interesting. Switch gravity off, and it just wobbles back and forth, the induced torques and counter-torques all cancelling.

But the fulcrum used is just a pin joint - a simple rotary pivot. What the Mersburg pendulums seem to depict is a fulcrum that can move horizontally - the pendulums can hang to the left or right, as the mood takes them.

So i wondered how this moveable fulcrum might affect the penduwheel, and discovered this:



...the moveable fulcrum seems to cause a directional trade of momentum between pendulum and wheel.

I spent some time investigating this, however it all checks out with N3, and in effect is just a kind of inertial 'soft clutch' mechanism, wherein the rotor is simply dragging the pendulum round. IOW is is due to a torque asymmetry, but only in the sense that any clutch or brake is, and is most likely just a dissipative effect.

Next up is something ingeniously stupid, even if i say so myself...

- my thinking was, that Bessler's 'squares'n'circles' thing was an allusion to angular vs linear inertial torque induction - i still think these are the chief currencies of his special interaction, but this concept just fails to apply them properly..

- so the logic was, what if we reduce the cost of pulling a mass inwards by decelerating it first, and storing its momentum on-board the wheel, to be returned once it's back in the center..? So all the momentum would still be present, and we'd've gone from a low-energy high-MoI state, to a higher-energy lower-MoI state, without pitting ourselves against CF..?

- and suppose further that the angular deceleration needed to pull that mass in on the cheap, was furnished by a reciprocating mass on its way back out? Bloody genius, eh?? What you end up with is this:



..it conserves energy and momentum, trading it, somewhat erratically, between angular and linear interactions. Unfortunately though, as you can see, they're just fully-conservative interactions.

The stupid oversight here is simply that in order to change up a momentum's energy value by dragging it inwards, it needs to actually have the momentum in question about its person upon arrival. That's the condition clearly stated on the coupon. Showing up with just your mass, while your momentum is sent through some kind of baggage-handling system, is just dumb. Sure, we still have all of our momentum... we just haven't changed up its energy value. The orbiting mass needs to be exercising its present and extant momentum during its radial excursion in order to arrive at the center at an increased energy. Duh.

But all the while, i've been running through all the other facts, still looking for an overriding consistency between Bessler clues and the basic physics of classical OU. And in this endeavor, i still feel, more than ever, that i'm fumbling inexcorably towards an inevitable conclusion...

So, moving swiftly on... i want to share some further elucidations on the Toys page..

[MrVibrating]

The Toys page.

I won't bother with piccies as we all have the image burned into the backs of our eyelids already.

So close your eyes and cast your attentions to the horizontal positions of the two snap toys, relative to the eyelets on the staff (B):

- the upper toy (C) seems to purposefully align to one of these eyelets

- equally, the lower toy (D) is offset between two eyelets



So let's quickly just tie up some obvious consistencies here...

- these eyelets represent either 90° or 180° arc segments about an axle... most likely the latter case - they're opposite one another, as in 3 o'clock vs 9 o'clock, or 6 vs 12 etc.

- the snap toys represent paired masses swapping inner and outer positions

- both toys are in their max MoI positions. Their RKE as a function of their momentum is minimal.

- in operation, they pass through their min-MoI, max-RKE positions at the perpendicular, fully square with the radial axis, landing back in their alternate max-MoI, min-RKE positions on the other side of the rotation.


- these are our special energy pulses. This is the currency we trade with. These torques are what the OU interaction is made from. These are the junctures where the energy value of a conserved momentum becomes variable. If we're looking for something that opens a door to an energy asymmetry, well, here's a freakin' revolving one...

- we have two such interations, offset by 90° perpendicular to one another...

- one complete mechanism therefore forms a cross-shaped plan view - doubtless, his "cross-piece".

- it's a two-stage inertial interaction, as previously deduced was likely (if not a necessity):

- each mechanism modifies the relative input and output conditions of the other, due to this 90° offset;

- the Mersburg and Kassel stampers and waterscrew observe this same choreography - indeed, our paired masses could be replaced by 'stampers' or just radially-moving spokes, per MT 135 and 136, the gap between them a mere practical means to circumvent having to pass through the axle; to all intents and purposes, each pair of radially moving masses can be thought of as a single entity, simply changing its radial distribution.

- now follow these next points carefully:

- when one of these radially-moving masses is setting off, from one side of the rotation towards the other, opposite side, it is travelling 'uphill' against CF

- when it reaches the exact center, it's perched on the CF summit, beyond which it's falling back out


- what the Toys page depicts is a 90° phase offset between inbound and outbound excursions... IOW, the uphill leg of one displacement (one stamper or pair of masses) is balanced against the downhill leg of the other..

- each excursion is using the MoI variation caused by the other as its 'launching off' point

- IOW, the relative energy values of the input and output integrals for any individual excursion are a variable function of what the other one's doing..

- example: one pair begins moving in, towards their low-MoI balanced center, at the same moment the other pair are falling out, from the center, towards their resting inner / outer position. These uphill and downhill radial forces could, conceivably, be counter-balanced, such as via a chord and pulley system running through the axle, and without causing their angular accelerations to interfere.. In other words, the two main armatures of the cross-piece can rotate somewhat independently, accelerating and decelerating as their varying MoI's dictate, while counter-balancing their CF and CP loads..

- so then what's needed is some way of using each RKE peak as a leaping-off point for inflating the PE value of a preceding KE output; invest an input energy in a high-MoI momentum, cash it in at lower MoI, and to do so asymmetrically, somehow sinking or mitigating the losses. We're scoping out the right bank, we just need to learn its systems and we're in.. There must be some means of generating an asymmetry here.

- now consider the chain-thing, item (A):

- if the horizontal sections, orthogonal to the axle and the eyelets it's aligned with, thus represent the radial plane, then the vertical sections must represent the axial plane.

- as such, the thing conveyed about the axial plane, and the very thing we need an asymmetry from, is torques. This is why i suspect that item (A), in its relationship to the axle (B), is a representation of induced torques.

- as such, we see an asymmetry between CW and CCW torques - there's two vertical 'links' running from left to right in the axial plane, but only one coming back from right to left.

- so the chain seems to represent a sequence of induced torques, or perhaps energies or momentums, with a CW vs CCW directional asymmetry

- now please consider the upturned whistling top:

- as previously noted, the Tippe top wouldn't be invented for centuries - this is a conventional whistling top. It cannot balance upside down. The "child's game" likely relates to the fact that every single child that ever played with this toy for more than a few minutes realised the implicit challenge of trying to get it to work upside down...

- when you spin these toys up, initially the handle is precessing, but provided it's not too wild it stabilises, and the orbiting handle is neatly drawn inwards, passively reducing the system MoI and maximising its RKE for its given momentum - the exact polar opposite of what most rotating systems do with their MoI, and precisely the kind of thing we'd like to happen to get our greedy mits on duh free energy, innit.

- so B's point here is that what the 'correct' solution to MT 138-141 looks like has key similarities to an inverted top - it would doubtless have occurred to him that most will simply mis-interpret this as implying GPE gain from spin, or something - which is not his intention, and besides which, any GPE so gained will have come at the expense of RKE.. the form of PE here is more subtle; it is the implied PE of a system naturally gravitating towards minimising its own MoI. He's saying "take this principle, and turn it on its head!" - the principle in question being self-induced MoI reduction and consequent RKE gain from a conserved momentum..

- the scissorjack, i think, just represents inertia, perhaps linear actuation also, or maybe the ideal form of the mechanism's key structures or principles (ie. MoI variation via a mass that can morph its own aspect ratio, perhaps).. MT 41 shows the pair of paired masses, the extra articulations between the axle and spokes, yet horizontal jacks, disconnected from any masses, the accompanying text suggesting "horizontal application" is less lossy, but then going on to show us vertical jacks in MT 42, with its box-out showing five pairs - the same number of these asymmetric interactions signified by the chain (A) in MT 138-141... from which the only consistency i can see is that he's playing with semantics, meaning "horizontal activation" as from the plane of the applied forces on the 'handles', which could be axial or radial..


- so is five interactions especially important? What's with that whole "5" thing? If each 360° turn of axle (A) facilitates a complete interaction of unequal CW vs CCW torque sums, why do we need to consider five such rotations... is this just one of his little idiosyncrasies, here applied to drive home the asymmetric nature of the torque sequence? Each cycle, as depicted, is independently OU already, as must be the case in terms of basic logic... Perhaps the 'five thing' ties into any ciphers he may have used, but it doesn't seem to have any physiological significance.

- these daisy-chained MoI interactions, where inputs and outputs of each respective translation are jumping between the opposing inertial frames of their counterpart translations, result in some kind of asymmetry on the axle. This is what the Toys page seems to be on about... and the conclusion of the same principles extrapolated in the preceding images all the way back through MT.

[MrVibrating]

Bessler's "cross-piece", as deduced from the Toys page, basically looks like this:



..again, it could just be two stamper-type masses - the only reason for separate inner / outer ones with a gap between is to circumvent their collision with the axle, but any kind of axle pass-through would be equally viable..

It is thus from this structure, and its inertially-induced accelerations and decelerations, that the form of the excess impetus is produced - somehow, there's a way of applying this that corresponds with the reactive torque properties reported by witnesses and alluded to by Bessler himself; a method by which the mechanism self-selects which of the positive or negative torques are additive or subtractive, yielding the directional asymmetries his wheels generated...

I should point out that i suspect their relative motions to and fro were hard-coupled somehow - that both had to move radially at the same time, thus maintaining the relative synch shown here...

Some degree of relative axial motion between them however seems implicit..

[MrVibrating]

..just to emphasise the point again, because i only gave a line to it previously - this solution to the toys page (partial though it remains), also provides consistency for the upwards-falling stampers depicted in the Mersburg and Kassel wheels - the stampers only need lifting up halfway, into the center of rotation, where CF is balanced, and from thereon they continue to 'fall upwards' under rising CF towards the other side of the wheel.

Then they rotate back down, before being raised linearly again.

This has to be the angular to linear asymmetry Bessler alludes to in MT with various references to "additional structures".

The most obvious solution here would seem to involve counter-balancing CF between inbound vs outbound masses, then rotating them back down... however i don't expect that this alone generates energy - rather, it's some kind of 'prime mover' principal, to which we can attach a system of rising and falling weights.. IOW, this is some kind of 'change up' mechanism, and applied in the right way, we should be able to create and destroy energy by inputting it when MoI is low, and outputting it when MoI is high, vice versa.. or something along these lines...

Still, can you believe i've been staring at that damned Toys page for three years, without noticing what was right there in black and white..?

Presumably the 'circle vs square' dichotomy will need resolving before the exact nature of this interaction becomes clear - it seems to indicate that each pair of masses is subject to slightly differing conditions, somehow, perhaps WRT continuous vs varying forces, or something..

The bucket / bricks, opposing pulleys, locks (ever noticed that the square wheel on the waterscrew is wider than the trough it's sat in, precluding any actual rotation at all?), and pendulums should also all somehow resolve with this crosspiece contraption..

[MrVibrating]

...looking again at the toys page, along with the preceding images, i think i may have got the phase wrong - the more consistent reading looks like both pairs of masses are either in or out at the same time..? Like this:



..which would seem to preclude the CF balancing i'd envisioned.. unless they move in half-step, rather than in unison.. ie. one slides into the center, then the other follows, then the first falls out, then the second follows etc. - in a similar sequence to that of the stampers. If OTOH they both swap sides in one fell swoop, then it's simply an unbalanced MoI variation, as opposed to one in which both masses move in and out together while remaining in balance.. so it'd be introducing a gravitational interaction into the intertial variation...

[MrVibrating]

..realised something else..

- the hammer toys' horizontal beams could correlate with the stampers / linearly moving masses..!

As such, the vertical characters with their hammers could represent angular displacements (inertial or gravitational) - so each individual hammer toy could represents a kind of set (or sub-set) angular-linear interaction.

Maybe it's describing a net interaction comprised of two such sets of linkages, or else, perhaps each of the two sets represents alternate phases of the same linkage system. My money's on the former, and i'll explain why..

The lower toy (D) has handle-grips on opposite ends of its horizontal beams - seeming to indicate a "horizontal application" or actuation. From the point of view of an interaction, any such displacement could be an input, or an output, but handles here would seem to suggest that this action is an input displacement.

So, staying with (D), as the handles are pushed inwards towards one another horizontally, the two kids with their strudel mallets (or whatever they are) initially go from leaning left, to being bolt upright.

In this perfectly square position, the horizontal beams (from hereon i'll just call 'em 'stampers' since that's the basic hypothesis) are in their minimum MoI state. The two hammers are at equal distance from the central anvil, so they too are at their minimum MoI position.

So, in summary of the lower toy (D), as previously noted, it represents a minimum MoI / max KE state when halfway between either its left or right resting high-MoI / low KE state - in one full interaction it goes from high-MoI, uphill into a central low-MoI state, and then downhill again to the opposing high-MoI state.

However, the new proposition is that this point applies to both the vertical hammer characters, as well as the pair of stampers they're connected to - so there's both angular and linear MoI variations represented by the one toy, and in the case of the lower one, the angular and linear min and max MoI states are correlated, with both pairs of masses being in the same MoI state at the same time, and varying their MoI's in unison.

But not so the upper toy (C) - instead of handles, it has these bulbous masses on its outer ends...

So, while the hammer characters above share the same MoI gradient as their lower counterparts on (D) - high MoI when tilting left or right, low MoI when perched perfectly vertically - the stampers they're connected to and moving with are switching between a high MoI state when the bulbs are further apart (as depicted, when leaning to the right), and lower MoI when leaning to the left, with the bulbs thus drawn closer together.


Interesting huh?


So we can describe a key difference between two different types of MoI gradient being portrayed by the horizontal beams here - that of the upper toy's MoI gradient, which is simply the conventional radial one, increasing as a function of mass times radius from the axis, vs that of the lower one, which, like the hammers weilded on both toys, is at min-MoI about its central radius (ie. if the wheel's radius is 2 meters, say, then the central radius is at 1 meter), with MoI increasing towards its maximum either side of that position.

Putting it as simply as possible, each hammer toy shows a pair of stampers connected to a pair of weight levers. An angular / linear interaction.

Both of the angular motions, and one of the linear ones, move along matching MoI gradient - they're equally happy keeled to the left or right, where the system can minimise the KE of its given momentum, and they don't want to be balanced in between, in their maximum energy states. The stable equlibrium for all three is to the left, or to the right, but either's fine, they're not fussed which side they rest on.

But not so the lower toy's stampers - this fourth displacement wants to be in its current position - tilted to the right. The hammers it's moving don't care which side they're on, but they're at the mercy of the stampers they're connected to.. when all three other pairs of masses are in their min-MoI state, the stampers on (C) are halfway between their min and max MoI states..!


In a nutshell, the lower toy (D) shows complimentary angular / linear MoI variations, but the upper one, (C), shows an odd couple.

To further stir things up, we have this possibility of a 90° phase offset between the upper and lower toys' operation WRT their indicated relative axle positions - either they're opening and closing 90° out of phase, and the sequenced axle and chain (A) and (B) represent a timeline (so the depicted relative states of the toys doesn't necessarily imply they're in those states as the same time), or else the image does represent a 'snapshot in time' of their relative positions, and they thus move in unison, just orthogonally.

I suspect the kids' strudel mallets correspond with the diametric weight levers as depicted in MT 133, and that their relative GPE's or MoIs may be modified asymmetrically during rotation, somehow.. The stampers obviously correlate with MoI-shifting, whether via paired inner/outer masses (curcumventing axle pass-thru) or just spokes sliding through the axle, or indeed 'stampers' engaged by axle cams, etc. The adults' hammers might thus represent further MoI-varying masses, or balance modifiers, or who know what - again, these could be separate parts of a composite interaction, or separate phases of the same parts' interaction..

Final thought for now is that the difference in relative vertical proportions of the upper and lower hammer toys matches the taper of the scissorjack (E) - if the horizontal beams are akin to stampers, as i'm suggesting, then this vertical difference suggests the lower pair sit outside the upper pair, at higher radius from the center.

I think the square anvil perhaps represents an action that is jerky, non-continuous, and so having a sequence of acceleration and deceleration phases, and thus their associated counter-inertias, whereas the circle implies a more sinusoidal action, as if varying linearly as a function of angle.. But this remains very tenuous.

Still, this would all seem to weigh in significantly on the presumed "5th game" of trying to cause a passive (ie. self-induced) MoI reduction (per the inverted whistling top).. lots to consider here.

[MrVibrating]

More on the Kassel picture anomalies:

Left / right horizontal length asymmetry between pendulum axis beams (P) corresponds with similar asymetry between left and right support beams (13) in the Mersburg images.

There's a preponderance of anomolous rotations between left and right halves of the image, implying some further anomalies:

Obviously we have the profile / plan view 90° rotation in the Z-plane. But the water screw has also rotated 90° - backwards, clockwise, if read from left-to-right, which might thus be taken to imply that the right side image is to be considered first, preceding the time interval shown on the left, or else simply indicates that the water screw has rotated in its 'reverse' direction, lowering some water instead of raising it.

If so, this 'output' has performed a corresponding input of raising the bucket, winding it in towards the axle.

If the previously-noted occlusion anomaly of the junction between the stamper levers is ignored, then the front-most stamper has been pulled down, from its resting position above, by its lever. Conversely, if the lever crossover anomaly is respected, then the falling of the front-most stamper has applied positive torque to the wheel, and the wheel is subsequently going to pull the rear stamper downwards from its shown resting position above.

IOW, if the anomalies are all respected, then the implication is that the stampers want to fall outwards, as if under CF, rather than downwards under gravity, and the wheel and cams must therefore oscillate relative to them, alternating betwen CW and CCW torques.

But there are further anomalies here - the cams have rotated 45° between left and right halves of the image; on the left side, they're aligned to the 'spool arms', yet offset diagonally on the right side..

So this means the waterscrew-to-stamper synchronisation has changed between the two halves of the image - the 'power pulses' that would correspond to the rope riding over the corners of the square wheel, and those corresponding to the stampers (regardless of whichever direction they fall in) are simulataneous on the left, but sequential on the right - the former overlaying the repsective accelerations and decelerations, and the latter, counterposing them.

This alternation between simultaneity and sequentiality may have further interesting implications WRT how forces and counter-forces from different displacements interact, the balance of relative vs intrinsic momentums and thus the relative balance of PE / KE WRT a given momentum. I'll treat this next..

Yet all of this might seem moot, since, as previously noted, the square wheel cannot rotate in its trough in the first place - not without jumping up off its support bearings anyway.

The stand brackets (10), as previously noted, are translocated from another image, the one titled "First and second Figure of PM at Weissenstein".

Lotta questions here, not least why's the water drain away after dropping back into the tank, what's with the window-thing, what any or all of these asymmetries and rotations mean.. There's other occlusion errors too (the shading on the left-side tub leg, the stamper lever support post and its base block, the 180° rotation of the rope twist, plus weird stuff going on in all these images with the double-borders and parts intersecting them)..

But next up, some more thoughts on the plasticity of the momentum - KE relationship...

[MrVibrating]

The evidence that the form of torque Bessler was manipulating was inertially-induced is beyond doubt - he basically says so expressly, in multiple ways, while dismissing any potential misinterpretation of his intentions WRT the possibility a gravitational asymmetry.


Despite this, however, we have this apparent requirement for verticality, which might seem to imply some role for gravitation. Obviously, if a gravitational asymmetry's off the cards, then gravity must be fulfilling some other purpose..

So, suppose we already had our prospective inertial torque asymmetry.. we can pull a mass inwards using less energy than this MoI reduction generates, and cream off the difference, scot-free, happy days.

But hang on a second - how, exactly, would we be "creaming it off"?

Bessler was applying loads directly to the wheel's axle.

But think about this for a moment; suppose we have say, in an extreme example, 1 Joule of RKE in an orbiting mass. We also have another 10 J of PE pre-loaded into a spring, and which upon releasing, yanks the mass inwards, accelerating the orbit in the process.

So now, at its new inner radius, the mass has 11 J of RKE - the 1 J it initially had, plus the 10 J inertial acceleration we applied, via the spring. There's zero PE left in the spring. All the system energy is in the form of rotational kinetic energy.

But all the while, our net system momentum has remained constant.

We haven't gained or input any more momentum. We only have the same amount we began with. It just has more energy now.

So, what happens if we cream off that 10 J that came from the sprung PE?

By removing this energy in its current form of KE - as by a drive belt around the axle, or a load lifted by it, say - we're exporting much of our system momentum to the applied load.

So when we tap off that 10 J of raised RKE, and revert back to having just 1 J left on the rotor, it now only has 1/10th its original momentum, and the other 90% has been transferred over to the other mass carrying away the 10 J. If OTOH the 10 J is converted straight back to PE - say, by winding another rotary spring - then the 90° of leeched system momentum has been sunk to Earth..

Ie. if instead we creamed off the 10 J by winding a rotary spring against the earth, we've sunk 90% of the system momentum to earth, and 90% of its energy into the rotary spring.

But the amount of momentum we can then buy with that 10 J of PE is up to us - we could accelerate 20 kg up to 1 m/s, netting 20 kg-m/s, or equally, we could accelerate 1 gram up to 141.4 m/s, for 0.141 kg-m/s.

That's just an arbitrary example of how one might spend the same 10 J, but with a difference of 141.8 times the total quantity of momentum. But it is arbitrary - we could invest a given amount of energy in a thousand times more or less momentum, at our leisure.

And so, if tapping an inertially-induced RKE gain directly from the axle must also be removing system momentum, which indeed is what embodies the energy so being transferred, yet Bessler's wheel evidently weren't losing momentum... then they must've been adding it, from somewhere.


All of which would seem to suggest, that ramping up the energy via inertially-induced torques is only half of the trick - the other game is adding momentum - trading up the available energy for more momentum, the energy value of which is then inflated, and tapped off along with the system momentum that must be sacrificed along with the RKE output.

And so we need some system of 'converting' a momentum, via the medium of its extant KE, into a store of PE, and we have no stator to apply force against (such as to wind a rotary spring against)... but what we do have is a system of rising and falling weights...

And so this system of GPE inputs and outputs would seem a good place to look for a momentum change-up opportunity - any conversion of KE to PE represents a potential for increasing or decreasing the system momentum, since, when all the KE is converted to PE, momentum is zero, and how much mass is subsequently set in how much motion seems, quite literally, somewhat up in the air..



TL;DR

...tapping off excess RKE, after a nice free gain, might seem like a mere formality - the deal's done, you've gained free energy from a passive MoI reduction that cost you nothing. However, we then find that in order to collect it, we have to remove some system momentum..

How much momentum we remove is a function of the inertia of the applied load. Bessler claims that such loads actually further raise the system efficiency, so ideally, we'd be removing quite a lot of it..

And thus, since Bessler's wheel's held constant momentum, the amount being generated must be equal to the amount being removed.

Conversely, when holding its speed despite being under positive torque (as when lowering a load), the system must be removing internal momentum, trading down, instead of up, but again by an amount equal to that being added.

Ultimately, the name of the game is momentum, and the variability of its KE value - or equally, the variablity of momentum for a given energy..

This is why variability of MoI is gonna be our wildcard..

And why we need a pair of MoI variations, rather than just one.

And also why we need to be statorless, presumably..

Bottom line; we can't be tapping off excess KE without also removing momentum. Bessler even suggests that the OU efficiency depends on us tapping off more, rather than less, momentum (the advantage of attaching conventional machines).... which means that whatever replenishes the energy is a secondary consideration to what must be repleneshing the momentum...

[MrVibrating]

Maybe the inertial resistance provided by attaching conventional machinery generates an advantage in producing more momentum? IOW the momentum-generation principle would have to depend on the wheel's own angular inertia in its turning direction, and hence anything else adding to this inertia also further contributes to the harnessing or generation of further internal momentum..?


Momentum is so fundamental - i'd been hoping on exploiting its primacy to robotically convert MoI to velocity and thus energy, thinking all we needed was some kind of CF-balancing scheme or something.. and i've only just followed through now on the implications of that same predicate when it comes to harnessing the output energy from the axle! My typically-blinkered half-schemes are no surprise to anyone, but the implications of this belated realisation are potentially highly informative - this pretty much neatly eliminates a whole class of potential exploits, at a stroke.

As neatly as time invariance precludes a GPE asymmetry; in this case, any putative inertial energy asymmetry in a statorless system providing output RKE directly from its own system axis is removing massive amounts of system momentum!


Can't drive this point home hard enough - it's revelatory, to me anyway.. a revitalising epiphany..

Another simple example of the point:

- suppose we have a spinning wheel and a scheme that allows us to pull in a mass for free, with no resistance from CF, causing a nice spin-up via the ice-skater effect.

- if we reduce the mass's radius by half, MoI is reduced fourfold, so CoM kicks in and dutifully delivers a fourfold rise in velocity, conserving the net momentum. Four times the velocity at half the MoI equals twice the energy - we've doubled it, for free. Get in, eh?

- but then when we then come to tap off that 100% energy gain, by attaching a load to the wheel or axle, we also necessarily tap off half the system momentum! We only boosted its energy, not its momentum! So any KE taken off must also remove momentum.

- ergo, no output KE is available from such a system - but likewise, no form of PE either; suppose we could feed it with untensioned springs - we pop 'em in one side, and then they drop out the other each loaded up with 1J or whatever.. that PE has to have been converted from KE which has to have cost momentum.


But in so decisively informing us that this particular door is firmly shut - and that there's nothing useful behind it anyway - we're at least rewarded with a better idea of what further doors to be knocking on..

We have a statorless, vertical wheel, exhibiting directionally-dependent reactive torques of equal opposing sign, which continually outputs excess momentum, and which must therefore be replacing it somehow.

This presents a useful narrowing of focus..

[MrVibrating]

Just to kick things off, then.. one way of generating new momentum internally would involve rasing the MoI without incurring the usual associated angular deceleration. IOW, if MoI goes up, but V doesn't go down in direct inverse proportion, then we have a non-constant system momentum.

The inverse asymmetry would simply involve adding velocity - since momentum is inertia times velocity - so MoI could be held constant when this velocity is added, and momentum will have increased along with KE.

Early days, but something that principally adds velocity, and thus momentum and energy with it, seems the more mechanicaly intuitive branch to explore...

[MrVibrating]

The penduwheel concept i was playing with a few months back might yet be useful:

- a torque is applied between a wheel and pendulum (per the Mersburg-inspired penduwheel on previous pages of this thread)

- if the wheel and pendulum's angular inertias are equal, then the wheel is spun in one direction, the pendulum in the opposite direection, which flies up to its apogee, stops, and dives back down again, and reaches the same speed as the wheel at it passes bottom dead center.. at which point, all of the system momentum, 'action' and 'reaction' mass, is travelling together side-by-side, in the same vector, location, and time - directly confounding the usual outcome of Newton's 3rd law.

So the trick would be being able to do this cyclically - if we can keep adding energy while both interacting masses are stationary relative to one another, then we're OU by the second impulse. If each input Joule buys the same 1 kg-m/s of net momentum, the value of the second impulse, as measured from a stator, is 400% over-unity.

If we can go so far as to add a third impulse in the same manner, that impulse is 900% OU. If we could then manage a fourth one - so now we've applied four mutual accelerations between two masses which have nonetheless remained stationary relative to one another at the moment of each impulse - then that fourth stage impulse is 1600% OU.


I've already demonstrated a single stage version (it's trivial, as you can doubtless imagine), but just managing a 2nd stage should guarantee us 4x OU.

So how to get to a second stage? I've been thinking, tenuous, half-baked ideas so far, but still, all we need is a situation in which the rotor and its reaction mass are relatively stationary at each moment that input energy's applied, while all the while that 'pseudo-static' frame is being accelerated.

This, if possible, would seem a most straightforward and direct way to farm 'free momentum' coupons..

[WaltzCee]

- so then what's needed is some way of using each RKE peak as a leaping-off point for inflating the PE value of a preceding KE output; invest an input energy in a high-MoI momentum, cash it in at lower MoI, and to do so asymmetrically, somehow sinking or mitigating the losses. We're scoping out the right bank, we just need to learn its systems and we're in.. There must be some means of generating an asymmetry here.

Buy high, sell low?

I've thought of this idea differently. Imagine you could go back in time when you were struggling through school and give yourself a grant. Or better yet, go back in time and tell yourself to buy as much msft as you could afford. Orthogonal forces in rotation could easily communicate.

The future would be very different.

[ME]

So the trick would be being able to do this cyclically - if we can keep adding energy while both interacting masses are stationary relative to one another, then we're OU by the second impulse.

Let's hope we could do that without adding energy.

I didn't know where to put my reply, so I dumped it here: Link

[MrVibrating]

- so then what's needed is some way of using each RKE peak as a leaping-off point for inflating the PE value of a preceding KE output; invest an input energy in a high-MoI momentum, cash it in at lower MoI, and to do so asymmetrically, somehow sinking or mitigating the losses. We're scoping out the right bank, we just need to learn its systems and we're in.. There must be some means of generating an asymmetry here.

Buy high, sell low?

I've thought of this idea differently. Imagine you could go back in time when you were struggling through school and give yourself a grant. Or better yet, go back in time and tell yourself to buy as much msft as you could afford. Orthogonal forces in rotation could easily communicate.

The future would be very different.

Prior to last week's realisation that momentum gain was a prerequisite, i'd been thinking that a mere energy asymmetry could be sufficient - basically, variations on invest when MoI is high, cash-in when it's low.

I'm clear now that simply being able to freely raise the energy value of a conserved momentum is not sufficient - this gain would then have to be re-invested in fresh new momentum, from somewhere - this, in a statorless system, with nothing external to push against..

IOW, an inertial energy asymmetry alone wouldn't cut it - we'd still need a violation of Newton's 3rd law. And since that would net us free energy anyway, Occam's argument against multiplication of entitites suggests if one symmetry break can give us free momentum and energy, then looking for two separate exploits is silly - all we're after is a momentum symmetry break; keep adding energy to one of these and we circumvent the usual half-square accumulator on KE. Essentially, input energy to a perfectly elastic N3 break scales linearly as a function of inertia times velocity - exactly the same dimensions as momentum.


To put it another way, if we can keep adding energy to a pair of interacting masses, in such a way that the net system gains the same amount of momentum per interaction, then whether what we are inputting is 'energy' or just 'momentum' becomes academic... strictly speaking, since its dimensions are a constant (M * V) and speed invariant, we're not inputting 'energy' at all... just raw momentum.

Ideally, we could put in the same amount each impulse, and cause the same relative displacement between the masses, but this is all we'd be paying for - the rising net momentum and its associated energy (the OU bit) as simply a 'free' consequence of the asymmetric distribution of momentum.

As such, the final kg-m/s of momentum that tips us over C costs us no more than the first kg-m/s from the launch point.

When it comes to classical symmetry breaks, Newton's 3rd law is the motherlode. Which is a shame, as it seems utterly immutable WRT linear interactions. But rotating systems may offer a chink in its armour.. as i think i may have shown already with a penduwheel...

Dunno, every time i have a little ephinay like this, it's like a clean slate, and anything i was ranting about previously's all but forgotten.. For now, i'm less focused on energy symmetry, than momentum..