MTM5

[agor95]

Hi MrVibrating

Introducing an N1 violation into an otherwise-closed system - such as a planet floating in space - only has one possible outcome however, and so long as an unbalanced system is left running - especially under load, performing or demonstrating useful work - it is making permanent changes to the planet's resting state of motion, specifically its spin. This fact, again, is only to restate the first law of mechanics.

By all accounts, 2024 is set to be one momentous year.. Happy holidays!

I have given this conjecture some thought and it's became a journey. A train so to speak from increased weight pressing down to increased twist. All this being grounded to Earth with all the potential accumulated affects.

Now I am thinking the journey has taken me to the grounding affects being within the structural stress of the frame.
Again with a counter mirror version the external affects can be reduced.

So you can ground externally or internally. I can see the attraction for 'external ground' as a way to explain a potential energy source.
However I am looking at the 'internal ground' which is in effect an energy source of another type.

Happy x-mass

[John Collins]

I was very pleased to get your acknowledgement about my article on kiiking. As far as I know I introduced the sport to a very wide audience most of whom were unaware of it. I received several emails from Estonians and ex Estonians who remembered their families talking about it and didn’t know it was still celebrated in a few areas. More recently it does seem to have taken off in a big way over there but I don’t think I can take any credit for its rise in popularity.

JC

[agor95]

Hi JC

... More recently it does seem to have taken off in a big way over there but I don’t think I can take any credit for its rise in popularity.

https://www.mikekeen.co/

Mike has opened the debate on Food and over processed edibles. He Kayaked around Greenland eating an ancestral Inuit diet.

Happy x-mass

[MrVibrating]

NB: incidentally i would add that realisation of his likely culpability, when news reached the castle of the disaster, was a more-plausible reason for his subsequent smashing of the wheel than his stated excuse of IP concerns.

There is no question Bessler understood the vis viva resolution earlier, and more thoroughly, than anyone before him - this is implicit in his assertion that all true perpetual motion machines must, of necessity, be statorless; a generalisation that is both true but which also speaks to a fundamental understanding of the singular peculiarities of the exploit.

In that moment, his greater fear was not losing control of the IP, so much as others inevitably realising its involvement in the cataclysm if and when its modus operandi became public knowledge..

This much can only be speculation of course. What is beyond doubt is that all else being equal, momentum is conserved.

If there's a fundamental axiom of over-unity physics, it is epitomised in the distinction between a pendulum, and a person riding a swing; all natural force interactions are generally symmetrical, but for purely circumstantial, essentially incidental reasons - the pendulum experiences zero net G-time for example, because up and down-swing phases are time-symmetric in relation to gravity's constant acceleration. Yet all it takes is the addition of intelligent intervention to turn the conservation of angular momentum - via the ice-skater effect for example - against its own interests, to begin harnessing momentum directly from gravity and time. The person riding the swing is subverting CoAM to actually gain angular momentum.

Every step in an OU interaction explicitly depends upon all conservation principles holding precisely as they're supposed to within their respective terms and reference frames; their result not a 'violation' of the laws of physics, so much as their ultimate validation. It is thus inconsistent with all of the evidence to suppose that there is any trivial quantity of grounded stray momentum.

Even then, this only addresses concerns of classical physics; there is undeniably a quantum component however, insofar as we're basically sourcing and sinking both momentum and energy from and to inertia and time. Personally, i do not subscribe to Mach's principle as an explanation for inertia, and it seems to me that results here compel consideration of this proposition that inertia and time constitute an interface between the classical thermodynamic realm and quantum vacuum / ZPE. We should thus likewise remain ever mindful of 2LoT - there is always an entropy change associated with harnessing any energy gradient, somewhere along the line.. even if we're nonchalantly oblivious to its insidious creep..

[MrVibrating]

I was very pleased to get your acknowledgement about my article on kiiking. As far as I know I introduced the sport to a very wide audience most of whom were unaware of it. I received several emails from Estonians and ex Estonians who remembered their families talking about it and didn’t know it was still celebrated in a few areas. More recently it does seem to have taken off in a big way over there but I don’t think I can take any credit for its rise in popularity.

JC

LOL i suspect it may see something of a resurgence in interest imminently..

[MrVibrating]

Minor correction to the 'reactionless' demo using the spring-thing - i should have locked the kiiking axis too, not just the rotor axis. Done properly, the result is this:



So in this iteration the momentum anomaly isn't manifesting, instead respecting N1.

The same obviously cannot be said for the demonstration with the 5.3 rig, in which the kiiking axis continues gaining AM whilst that of the coasting wheel axis providing the CF force remains conserved and unchanged. That is emphatically not respecting N1.

The motogen results from the spring-thing however remain valid and informative - especially in showing this symmetry of the gain and loss conditions dependent on the relative direction; the KE delta in each direction seemingly proportionate to the quadratic relationship of KE to velocity.. ie. the gain or loss equal to 'transposing' the onboard value of the PE expenditure up and down the V² scale.

There's obviously some make-or-break distinction between what the spring-thing does in the second test, without the motogen, compared to what the 3.5 rig does when unharnessed - not sure what that is for now, but would hazard a guess that it's probably not achieving inertial isolation in the same way..

[MrVibrating]

Been puzzling over that result from the spring version, since it's obviously telling us something:

• it creates and destroys energy on the moto-gen, like the 5.3 rig

• however the kiiking axis on the 5.3 rig accelerates over consecutive cycles, whereas the spring thing doesn't

Watching the two anims side by side, the functional difference becomes obvious: the spring is grounding the momentum gain.

The kiiking rotor in the 5.3 rig accelerates because its conserving and accumulating its per-cycle momentum gain.

Evidently, the spring thing isn't accumulating momentum, so it's not accelerating. Yet it does accomplish the momentum asymmetry, or else it wouldn't be causing OU / UU on the motogen.

So the only consistent conclusion seems to be that it is making momentum, but that it's constantly transmitting it to the background / earth via the spring itself. Basically, the spring breaks the inertial isolation of the kiiking axis, by physically conducting momentum to ground. The 5.3 kiiking axis is truly isolated, so accumulates its momentum gain and accelerates.

Makes sense to me anyway. Looking at it, i don't see any obvious way to employ springs that would allow the kiiking axis to accelerate freely - i mean we could place a rotary spring on that joint, pre-wound to pull the weight down to BDC, then make it re-load that spring tension as it rises back up, but that would only work for one cycle (can't keep winding the spring indefinitely), and besides, would still be commuting torques back to the primary armature and thus ground.

Bottom line thus seems to be that springs demonstrably work, but are a dirty method. The 5.3 design's cleaner, being entirely non-contact. As a general rule, then, non-contact forces (CF, gravity, electromagnetism) are a superior choice. Any force works, but 'could' ain't 'should'.

This non-contact condition - allowing the kiiking axis to freely accelerate - is also what allows the 5.3 kiiker to turn in the same direction as the wheel, compounding absolute velocities, whereas the spring-thing kiiker only wants to run in the opposite angular direction to the primary armature (equivalent to 5.3's wheel), thus subtracting its absolute velocity from the primary arm's absolute velocity in the opposite direction.

It's a thesis anyway..

[MrVibrating]

OK, seems i'm an a roll with the false assumptions here:

• the 5.3 kiiker continues accelerating even though the wheel is coasting

• the wheel is always still at 2 rad/s after each kiiking cycle

Logically this can only mean the kiiking action is gaining momentum, right? I mean it has no vMoI to reign in as speed increases, which would be one way of accelerating whilst conserving momentum.. But the kiiking rotor and weight represent a constant MoI, therefore if they're accelerating, they must be gaining momentum..

Seemed a safe assumption on that basis anyway. But we're here to learn, test and prove, not guess or dictate.. So let's actually run the spin & brake test on it, see if it concurs with our little thought experiment there:



Damn. How do you even start to make sense of that?

• blue and green speeds are both continually rising each cycle

• wheel speed isn't decreasing each cycle

Yet when we drop the anchors on the kiiking action, there's no momentum gain there?

I tried letting it run for 10 cycles instead of 5 - no difference of course.

So somehow, a fixed MoI is accelerating without gaining momentum?

Is it because the kiiking weight is actually oscillating?

In other words it only actually has any net momentum when rising and falling - which it does ever-quicker - but by design, the weight is de-spun back to relative stasis at TDC and BDC, which is when i'm dropping the anchors here..

So in effect, momentum's coming and going on each spin and de-spin cycle, and only the rates of exchange (dp/dt) is increasing.. the net momentum per cycle remaining constant..?

Is that it?

Anyone else got a better reading on what's going on?

[Fletcher]

Only guessing atm .. I think WM treats everything as a point mass for linear motions (like when the blue kiiking mass is stopped relative to the green kiiking wheel) - otherwise if rotation is occurring when motor driven it calculates both a linear and angular momentum components ..

Point being that treating everything as a point mass maybe confusing something in the software because of the way you are using the sim which it perhaps was not anticipated for ..

Could be way off the reservation .. nothing else pops into the head atm ..

[thx4]

@ Daxwc,
https://youtu.be/DBKsRoGf4qU?si=nftRirq4hl7H38tO

RH46, created this simulation based on what he believed or saw on the model presented by Jon, (which has since disappeared, too bad).
If you look at the little green marble (which isn't a marble), you'll see that it accelerates in a spiral motion.
In other words, if you manage to drop a weight held by a rod connected to a central axis, you'll notice that; from 12H to 6H we're accelerating, then from 6H01 we consume the excess energy, then around 11H there's nothing left in the tank and we stop...BUT if from 6H01 you reduce your rod by 10mm (for example) you'll go beyond 12H and make another turn ETC...
It's an idea we're working on, it would be enough to reduce the stem two or three times to see if we maintain our speed or if it decreases, to be continued, I've put the workshop back in place. All good ideas are welcome, I think the track is worth following...
MrVibrating's latest experiment also shows the reduction in radius, which allows acceleration...

[MrVibrating]

Only guessing atm .. I think WM treats everything as a point mass for linear motions (like when the blue kiiking mass is stopped relative to the green kiiking wheel) - otherwise if rotation is occurring when motor driven it calculates both a linear and angular momentum components ..

Point being that treating everything as a point mass maybe confusing something in the software because of the way you are using the sim which it perhaps was not anticipated for ..

Could be way off the reservation .. nothing else pops into the head atm ..

Having chewed on it for 48 hrs i'm none the wiser either. I don't think WM's bugging out tho, so much as demonstrating the limits of our ability to follow the basic principles of motion into these complex kinematics - the reason we need to sim in the first place..

It's obvious that MoI needs plotting, so we can then meter momentum properly. Nothing insurmountable about that, it's just that i already know from experience that if i make a meter plotting the mr² of the weight - the only part changing radius - and add the body[x].moment for each of the three discs, that figure - which i would expect to be the instantaneous net system MoI - doesn't seem to pan out when multiplying by absolute velocities to derive momentum and KE. There's evidently some trick to calculating compound dynamic MoI's that i'm currently missing.

There's various approaches to working it out tho - especially since the system's so simple. I think i'll begin by just trying the calc from 1st principles, then multiplying it by the half-square of velocity to see if i can independently calculate the same KE as kinetic(); if that works then i can go on to meter momentum with confidence. If it doesn't work - as i suspect - i can still try inverting kinetic() by the velocity to derive the MoI, then subtract the body[x].moment for each disc, which should just leave the MoI delta from the kiiking motions.. type stuff (you know what i mean).

WM must be calculating the MoI's correctly internally just to arrive at kinetic() in the first place, so since we know the velocities, it should be possible to used derived MoI's to check the integrity of calculated ones..

There may be an even simpler option, or kludge at least, by adopting the internal FoR - as if kiiking under gravity - and simply ignoring the wheel MoI, whilst driving the wheel at constant velocity - under those conditions i can calculate the kiiking MoI with confidence; if it's accelerating without gaining momentum whilst the wheel motor's holding constant speed then that should suffice for understanding what's happening.. Gonna try that shortly in fact..

[MrVibrating]

Hmph. This seems fiendishly difficult for some reason.

KE = ½Iw², therefore I = (KE / w²)*2.

With the wheel coasting, i run a few kiiking cycles then lock the blue weight to the green disc - no more spin-ups - the green disc then continues rotating with the blue one stuck to it, thus changing radius relative to the wheel. The green disc is coasting inside the wheel, which is also coasting. Nothing's powered. Just coasting..

We (i) would expect that net momentum is constant in this situation - speed slowing as the weight moves out, recovering as it rotates back in - yet when i multiply that derived 'I' by the wheel's velocity, their product is fluctuating not constant.

In other words, even though i know the momentum's constant, i can't meter that effectively, at least not by multiplying the net KE-derived MoI by the wheel velocity.

I've tried various permutations of calculating the momenta in stages, every one so far showing varying net momentum whilst everything's coasting, so my calcs are definitely the problem.

No worries, can't expect to solve everything on the spot.. sorting it is obviously a necessity tho, so i'll keep at it. It shouldn't be that difficult. If we can just calculate the same net KE as kinetic() then those MoI calcs must be good and we can proceed to monitoring momentum..

[Fletcher]

I feel for yuh ! But probably gotta be tried .

[MrVibrating]

It's alright, just a matter of breaking down the problem into manageable chunks. I think i know what to do:

• set up a simple sim of a rotating wheel, with one smaller wheel mounted to its perimeter and also rotating, and work out how to calculate the same KE as kinetic()

There's only going to be so many permutations.

Once i grasp the solution to that, i'll then try adding a third, smaller rotating wheel to the second, and again try formulate the KE correctly.

At that stage i should have it. There's obviously a general rule to be observed when nesting rotating MoI's that i'm currently overlooking..

[Fletcher]

Yeah, I'd say so .. start simple and build up from there - cross checking against System KE Output and also summing individual metered KE Outputs (factory settings lol) etc etc .. run'm thru various accuracy setting from course to fine - build the picture of the differences (if any) ..

I did something just like that some years ago when something was niggling me - can't remember what it was about or how it turned out in the end - can't have been too bad else I'd probably remember the detail .. good luck ..