Flippin' Flywheels

[MrVibrating]

Hey .. grab some much deserved sleep - you've earned it. And you've shared freely and openly all the way along your journey which speaks volumes to your character. Whether you are ultimately right or wrong.

FWIW .. when you are fully rested it might be a good idea to start from scratch again and test each component proposition a second or nth time, that builds to the inevitable outcome you see.

Just to be sure something ain't 'off' in the hypothesis. It's always possible something critical has been missed in the adrenaline rush - besides, often things can be simplified a second time around, or tested in an alternative way, if that's possible.

We'd all like to at the very least see a unicorn, but you can't catch one till you know in which forest to look.

Absolutely, the likeliest answer is that i'm having a mini-breakdown, an if so apologies for cracking up in such an undignified mess..

Still can't find a weakness, only seeing further benefits..

Things seem simpler now, though - when the pirouetting ballerina pulls her limbs in and accelerates, their momentum has been conserved, but because that involved acceleration of the rest of her body, that hasn't altered its MoI, the rest of her body has gained momentum.

Now, the energy value of that momentum has been paid - she performed work against CF, spending equal energy to her total gain in RKE.

However that KE was distributed amongst all parts of the rotating system, not just her limbs. And while her limbs didn't change their momentum while gaining that energy (rather, they just changed up their existing momentum for a higher-energy distribution of inertia and velocity), that portion of the KE now manifested in non-radially translated mass has accelerated it, raising its momentum and thus that of the net system.

When she lets her limbs back out, that gained momentum is lost again, and everything balances out.

But where was it 'borrowed' from in the first place, from within that closed system? The question we should ask is not why she couldn't keep hold of it, but simply where the hell this reservoir is, if momentum is so fundamentally conserved? Sure, her system might not be "thermodynamically open" in terms of being able to keep the excess momentum, yet the fact that it's open enough to be interacting with the reservoir in the first place should intrigue us..

Besides, what if she decelerated due to friction instead - in which case the borrowed momentum is just dissipated along with its KE..? Does that likewise return it to its source?

The only way the skater could keep her net momentum truly constant despite the acceleration would be by reducing the rest mass of the rest of her body - if it hasn't changed radius, but its speed has risen, then variable rest-mass is the only safety valve for strict CoM. Which of course is a daft proposition, albeit the only possible get-out clause on the table.

If "first base" is simply keeping or discarding the 'borrowed' momentum, then it would seem we're dipping in and out of 2nd base all the time - a universal lending library we all take completely for granted. When we say "momentum is conserved", what we really mean is that it's ultimately conserved, when all is done and dusted. We mean the debt always has to be repaid.

Suffice to say, if we're about to invoke a get-out clause on the repayments, it might be a good idea to start asking just who or what this mysterious benefactor is.. underwriting the physical yet conserved momentum we lose and gain every time we change radius while changing angle...

I mean, you could do a little dance that creates and destroys momentum, in equal quantities, and not even know you were doing it. In fact i'd go further and point out that almost any form of dancing that involves rotations likely involves the spontaneous sourcing and sinking of momentum from and to 'nowhere'.

If this is a solution we have here, the question it highlights is one that should trouble us more since it applies equally to common every-day motions - the only difference here is that we get to keep the gains, or else destroy the losses without trace.. but simply gaining and losing instantaneous momentum itself is trivial, and something we do all the time quite obliviously. Momentum's conserved... at the end of the day. Ie. in the first instance it isn't... until it is. So its ultimate conservation is simply something that must usually be resolved owing only to practical constraints.. we pay it back just as inadvertently as we borrowed it.

Just seems surprising that we don't seem to question how we were able to borrow it in the first place - that we're not even aware we're doing so.. that we're contented enough by its ultimate conservation to never even notice its instantaneous inherent variability.

The reality seems to be that very often, momentum isn't conserved... until it is... So behind this question of what it means to be able keep (or permanently discard) gains or losses of momentum, is this more general elephant in the custard, of where all this momentum's coming from and going to all the time everywhere..

I mean, when you spin round 180° and do the James Bond pistol pose (just to check you're not being followed by squirrels, or something) - that basic everyday action destroys momentum! Spinning around while moving your arms out destroys angular momentum in your brain, and groin , depending on their relative rest masses and angular viscosity etc.

How about a celebrity workout video, certified by CERN as inducing N-kg-m/s of invigorating vital vis viva per 20 minute session, or your money back!?

If this is it, then it's not so much an innovation, as a slight twist on something already remarkable.. the instantaneous, transient momentum of any rotating body having any radially-translating mass is already non-constant... It seems strange that i'm only realising this now..!?

[MrVibrating]

Hey MrV,

Cheers mate, and yes, momentum seems to be the name of the game, which is unintuitive as i've spent years priming myself to try reduce everything to neat input vs output F*d integrals. But it also seems to be the way out of the CF-rising-with-KE-gains tail-chasing problem - we can let CoAM dynamically vary the MoI of a spring-tensioned variable-radius flywheel, to stack away momentum without gaining velocity, and thus without pitting ourselves against ever-rising CF.

Harvesting the PE of that momentum means that this governor mechanism either has to stop and start its rotation relative to that of the main system - to give us a chance to relax its spring - or else we use the linear-motion trick to temporarily eliminate CF and unload the spring..

I think I get where you are going with that spring tensioned flywheel governor thingy. I can say this is truly a genius idea (even if it won’t work at the end), it made me think hard. :)
But there might be a few problems, I try to address them…

First one, as you mentioned most likely it has to start and stop periodically.
Second, it can only compensate for the rpm change after the rpm have already been changed.
Third, if it is designed to extend springs to store PE, then the compensating mass will not fly out as far as CF/CoAM would otherwise dictate. The energy corresponding for the missing travel component will be stored in the spring as spring PE. You can choose weak spring with long extension or strong spring with short extension. This means that you can’t acquire all the energy which is needed to pull in a weight under peak CF, only a portion of it, and also as you have a MoI varying device for the compensation the system will not be accelerated as much as it would without it...

My gut feeling is that due to the governor device while gaining spring PE you also lose acceleration, and I presume that these values are the same amount, therefore it will still end up with a zero sum game. Although I haven’t checked this, so I can be wrong.

I modyfied my old simulation to see what happens if I pull in at high rpm and send out at zero, and it ended up with zero sum. That is because the system have to work against high CF at high rpm. If there would be some additional force (from another source) to help in retracting the masses, then it would self rotate for sure. I modelled this by adding some pseudo forces switched in at 5 sec. File is attached…

Otherwise, I think I have an interesting idea for you about the paternoster riders. I will come back with that a bit later.

Cheers mate, and cool mechanism, will take a closer look later.. The variable flywheel idea came to me along with the Robernoster while soaking in the bath last Saturday afternoon - i'd left a paternoster sim running, they take hours to run reliably due to all the collision calculations, so was trying to think up a lossless quick'n'easy version... and the whole thing kind of self-assembled right there. Was still dripping wet in me bathtowel when posting it here..

Just to clarify, the CF governor mech is dead simple and i posted a rough sim a page or two back - use CF to stretch or compress springs, from masses attached to their ends. You have a flywheel that absorbs more momentum by growing fatter, instead of faster.

To be clear - this is NOT the mass we retract inwards to produce inertial torque.

This is a separate layer of mechanism, at least in principle, and pulling its flung mass back inwards is not its intended purpose. Its purpose is purely to bank momentum rises as PE instead of KE - gaining energy without raising the CF of the masses riding the paternoster, which we do need to keep retracting.

If we simply added ever-more KE at constant net MoI, the paternoster velocity and thus CF workload would rise ahead of whatever PE would could claw back for our retraction spring, instead of behind it. This way, we always have enough PE to retract the paternoster masses against peak CF - and moreso, the faster we go.

However this CF governor principle also neatly explains another key performance characteristic of Bessler's wheels - their claimed load-matching ability...

Wolffe and Weise both attested that speed remained constant whether raising or lowering a load, or just running unloaded.

Bessler claimed the principle gained yet further advantage by being attached to conventional machinery as loads..

And multiple witnesses note the difficulty of stopping the machine..! It could raise a heavy-set man off the ground!

All of which is perfectly consistent with the variable-MoI flywheel concept - because it produces precisely these kinds of reactive torques.

Accelerating without accelerating, and now 'reactionless' reactive torques, LOL - these torques, unlike the usual kind we deal with, don't require a stator to push against, rather, it's inertial torque. Inertial torque comes from within, not from without..

However, unlike the IT's we apply by radially-moving the rotating paternoster masses, these IT's are produced in response to other applied torques, in an N3 relationship.

It goes like this - brake the flywheel, and CF being applied to the orbiting masses decreases, relieving force on the spring and allowing the masses to start to move back inwards...

...but inwards-moving masses induce their own positive IT, to conserve AM!

So it responds to negative applied torques with positive!

And automatically the other way round, too - try to accelerate it and, as you point out, this raises CF and so pulls the masses further out.. and outbound masses induce negative torque!

So it's kind of like a mechanical implementation of Lenz's law for electromagnetism, wherein Newton's 3rd takes the form of an electromotive force that counters any induced change in current - ie. our flywheel has properties of 'impedance', actively resisting changes in velocity.

But this is just the cap on the tank. The real piece de résitance is our apparent ability to cyclically add reactionless torques of one sign only. This creates a unique, divergent reference frame, in complete violation of N3, and whatever the cost of that excess momentum, so long as it can be held constant, then there's a break-even point at which the energy of the system is greater than we've expended.

Honestly, it reduces to a very straightforward axiom - momentum gets pricier the more you buy.. but not when making it yourself as you go along, and the velocity of the rotation you're making it with is constant.

Momentum bought by sidestepping N3 is cheap momentum, yet still the real deal.. its KE value anywhere else remains the same.

Bottom line really is that if you have any reactionless momentum gain at all, you're probably OU, but the more you have the more inevitable that becomes.

Remember though, Bessler's wheels appeared to be OU within a cycle, ie. immediately. Wolffe IIRC wrote that he had the impression that the weights gained more momentum than might've been expected from merely falling. So we're not talking about some long drawn-out flywheel action, but rather something that can happen quickly, and that likely resets at least once per cycle. So, rather than a small flywheel spinning up to high RPM, it's more likely a longer lever, rotating only through a limited range of angle, in the direction ahead of the rotation. Same principle, but in shorter time-slices.

Had to work late tonight, probably be W/E before i get anything more done..

[MrVibrating]

...something else just clicked - according to Wolffe's testominy, after the translocation during the Meresburg test, while Bessler was replacing the weights into the wheel, he was seen to push downwards on a spring, which was heard to rebound noisily..

So this spring was either intended to be able to bounce upwards freely - such as in response to varying CF - or else had slipped its catch and was a store of PE for centripetal force, forcing a mass inwards at an appropriate moment.

So could've been either layer of the mechanism - the paternoster, or governor.

At least, neither possibility's inconsistent with the report, anyway.

Again though, the purpose of the governor is not the load-matching properties - that's just a bonus feature - its real purpose is to absorb our momentum gains without having to raise RPMs and thus the CF on the paternoster.

[ME]

Still can't find a weakness, only seeing further benefits..

...unicorn?

It seems strange that i'm only realising this now..!?

Hope you already wrote that down on paper, as that's more important than being right or wrong. Plus the duration of realizing something is often very short !

Still can't find a weakness, only seeing further benefits..

I think I known what happens to the ice skating ballerina...

[thx4]

Some ballerina works better in the horizontal than in the vertical lol

Next week, I make a video, see a proto, very very simple, in the direction of Mr. Vibrating.

++

[sleepy]

I know I've said this before,but people keep using the spinning skater-ballerina as an example.The ballerina is spinning because the muscles in her/his body are making movements which cause the rotation.Arms in,less air resistance,faster spin.Arms out,more air resistance,slower spin.IMO,this example cannot be used to illustrate conservation of movement or force,as there is constant energy being supplied to the system.

[ME]

When it would just be air-resistance the spinning-down would just go less slow when the arms retract, not speed up as it does.
The speed-up can simply be explained by physics, but requires energy (as far as I know).
Even the force to keep it at some distance requires tiring muscle-energy for the centripetal stuff.
Hence the ice skating ballerina gets hungry (for a sandwich).

[WaltzCee]

• The ballerina is spinning because the muscles in her/his body are making movements which cause the rotation.Arms in,less air resistance,faster spin.Arms out,more air resistance,slower spin.IMO,this example cannot be used to illustrate conservation of movement or force,as there is constant energy being supplied to the system.
  • sleepy

• ...something else just clicked - according to Wolffe's testominy, after the translocation during the Meresburg test, while Bessler was replacing the weights into the wheel, he was seen to push downwards on a spring, which was heard to rebound noisily..
  
  • MrVibrating

I think a significant clue was given accidentally when the spring smacked the wheel.

• WaltzCee

That was the 2nd time I mentioned this accidently given clue. The springs might be considered the mechanical battery storing energy. Supplied from what though? What's obvious is the expense of friction necesitates even more energy. Pumping mass in and out requires energy. Frictions likewise. What picks up this tab? It seems the old saw, "there is no free lunch" still holds true.

[Fletcher]

Mr V is conjuring a unicorn into existence - by crunching Newtonian physics and math into a hypothesis (a reasoned prediction).

His hypothesis requires periodic input energy - and it allows for greater output energy potential than energy investment over time, which is currently physics heresy. It also is testament to him if found to be true.

If the crunching exercise is without a major flaw and can be reasonably tested/substantiated in its discrete steps the process will lead to a theory (a unifying explanation).

That opens the door for someone to find a mechanical self sustaining motion that employs his principles, and voila, an Inertial Engine aka a rare pink unicorn is born.

[MrVibrating]

There's a really simple config i mentioned almost in passing above, which i think might be worth spending some time on. I've already been playing with aspects of it, with unintuitive results, hence my further curiosity. It simply involves moving masses inwards and outwards radially, and examining how these actions affect the distribution of momentum and energy between the radially-translating mass, and the rest of the rotating system. At issue are our conceptions, and misconceptions, about just how CoAM applies. The creation of momentum within a closed system requires (mathematically) an investment and controlled release of PE from within the accelerated system, between the radially-translating and non-radially-translating masses. IE. you gotta give it some energy before you can influence the resulting inter-reaction of momentum and energy. GPE loads are a good currency for this, especially as they remain subject to Earth's reference frame, due to gravity's constancy, and the sheer practical fact that a diverging reference frame only has anomalous KE in relation to some other, non-accelerating, frame. I doubt it's possible for the wheel to have OU properties as might be measured from within its rest frame - plus, GPE loads also modify momentum, which, all else being equal, reduces when lifting and increases when dropping.

So i wanna run some tests moving mass in and out and seeing how this changes the distribution of P and KE, to hopefully achieve greater clarity on the dynamics of this particular interaction.

The other test i alluded to above is the reactionless-acceleration experiment, but transformed into its angular equivalent.

Like the speed-control concept, which i'll spend more time on later, this involves a little timing trick, of spending borrowed momentum and profiting on it before making the repayment.

To recap - if you're rolling forwards on, say, roller skates, with good bearings, and a 1 kg mass is sat on a skateboard rolling at the same speed directly ahead of you, and you then reach forwards and accelerate it by 1 m/s, you'll also have decelerated yourself, and spent energy on both these mutual accelerations, instead of just the one you wanted to.

If however we could perform the acceleration without incurring that equal opposite hit on our momentum, then we could accelerate that 1 kg mass by 1 meter / sec for the rock-bottom price of 1/2 Joule. To any stationary observer however, the KE of the accelerated mass has risen by the momentum you've given it, plus that which it had already.

From your point of view, the mass was stationary when you accelerated it. Motion's relative. However, normally, accelerating it would've decelerated you by the same 1 kg-m/s, and billed you for the privilege.

But if you can accelerate the mass without suffering a reaction force, then you're not decelerated, and from the input energy's point of view you were effectively stationary.

Yet if you and the mass were moving at say 1 meter / sec to begin with, and your speed's constant but it's has doubled, then the mass now has 2 Joules of energy. Four times the 500 millijoules we gave it.

Plus, the net system momentum has increased. So we've gained both energy, and momentum.

The maths of this are simply the very definition of KE; momentum is M*V, and KE is half that, squared. So at 2 meters per second a 1 kg mass has (1 * 2 =) (2 * 2 = 4 / 2 =) 2 Joules of KE. At 1 m/s, it has 1/2 J. If its velocity rises from 1 m/s to 2 m/s, its KE has risen by 1.5 J, three times more than we spent on it.

When we create energy and momentum from an N3 break, there's nothing mysterious or even anomalous about the gains - there's no element of handwavium involved, no magical mysterious "step 2: ?" before the profit. The only anomaly involved is the effective N3 workaround itself, whatever achieves it. But from thereon, the maths are simple and predictable, and it's the same old maths, nothing new at all. Input to output efficiency simply diverges by the 1/2 square of rising system momentum - at 10 m/s, every half Joule we spend on momentum is worth 9.5 J in the static frame, and so on - the faster the divergent inertial frame gets, the greater the discrepancy between the internal vs external values of a 1 kg-m/s unit of momentum, so our interaction efficiency increases with velocity - the 1 kg-m/s of momentum that got us from 1 m/s up to 2 m/s, cost us 1/2 a Joule but was worth three or four times that much, whereas if we buy the same amount of momentum at the same price while accelerating from 49 up to 50 m/s, RRP 49.5 Joules... we'd be at 100x OU.

None of your poncy delicate GPE-balancing yoga here mate, this is hardcore gains, a heavy duty power supply. And the more energy we have, the more momentum we can buy, and the faster we can buy it / make it..

But reactionless momentum's a unicorn, right? In the linear case, certainly - mass is constant, therefore so is linear inertia.

What about the rotating system though? Think about the inertial torque applied by changing an orbiting mass's radius on the fly:

- we apply positive torque by pulling the mass inwards, applying the instantaneous counterforce as centripetal force against the axis... we're not torquing against some other rotating mass, rather, the torque is induced within the mass as an innate, emergent impetus

- we get the equal-opposite counterforce of course, when we let the mass back outwards under the same CF we pulled it in against - this applies the equal opposing counter-torque, and so conserving the net system momentum

- yet, until that occurs, we're in a limbo zone - a transient window of opportunity in which we've gained velocity and potentially, momentum (we'll come back on this detail later), without having applied the corresponding counter-force yet. Momentum-wise, we're temporarily ahead of the game..

- if we exploit this position, we'll be spending some system momentum on it, so we'll have to re-invest the energy gain in something that can make more momentum, before we send the mass back out


For example, consider a vertical wheel containing a radial armature which fully crosses the axis, and able to rotate independently on its own axle bearing. So it can turn equally with the wheel, but also accelerate or decelerate independently of it.

Upon either end of this armature's diameter is a mass that can slide inwards and back out. So if we pull these masses inwards towards the center, the armature is accelerated ahead of the main system rotation, and if we let them outwards, it decelerates.

So to put some simple figures on it, a gain would look something like this:

1 ) Get the wheel moving. Give it some momentum and KE.

2 ) Cause the MoI reduction, accelerating the armature;

..and so apply a 1 kg-m/s acceleration to it, at a cost of ~1/2 Joule, yet without having decelerated the rest of the wheel yet, if the wheel already had an edge-speed of 1 m/s, then our 1/2 J spent internally is now 2 J relative to a static GPE load, and we can raise four times the GPE than the PE we've spent..

So essentially, a scissorjack, bearing equal masses on each end, rotating about its center on independent bearing from the rest of the wheel but coaxially with it, with a lightweight bucket or scoop or hammer on the ends - fire the jack, retracting the masses, applying reactionless torque, scoop or strike a small weight with 2 J of KE from a 1/2 J MoI-reduction, and we're 4x OU.

I'll be posting all these experiments as i go, no idea on timelines, have so little time for any of this ATM what with work.. I spent the weekend working this, right thru without sleep, and still haven't tested half the things i need to, but next i'll give a quick overview of what i've been doing the last few days...

[MrVibrating]

Below is a more detailed examination of the variable-inertia flywheel function:



..the objective here is speed control - making a flywheel that self-governs, rotating at pretty much constant speed regardless of how much torque is being applied to it.

We can tune the parameters for any preferential speed, within practical limits. Getting a wheel to have a preference for a high speed is easy, but getting a wheel to only want to turn slowly is trickier, ultimately pitting the amount of time we need or desire to sustain that stability for, versus the diameter of the disc housing available to us - remember, this is a flywheel that stores energy by getting fatter, instead of faster... and since there's only so much radius we can reasonably handle, we can only constrain speed like this - conservatively and without dissipation - for a finite peroid of time, and / or number of rotations.

Here, i've set a target for all tests of around 4 to 5 RPM, for a constant torque input.

In the first of these tests, above, we have two 10 kg masses, with a 1 meter restriction on radius. A constant torque of 1 N-m is being applied, and we have a ~17 second window of opportunity before hitting our rim stops..

During this time, momentum and KE continue to rise, independently of velocity, which almost flat-lines.

'Accelerating', gaining momentum and KE, without gaining velocity, is potentially useful if we're going to be playing with inertial torques induced by changing radius against CF. How and why will all become clear - for now, there are no other loads attached to the system, it's just a flywheel, and its CF is of course varying as its masses slowly vary their radius, but the point is, this device could be regulating the velocity of some other interaction, driven by the same motion..

For now tho, here's a longer-range run to show how the operating parameters evolve if we just let the sim run and the masses to exceed their previous 1 m radius limit:



...not that we'd ever need 164 seconds of effect, but here that translates to a ~4 meter final radius. So a constant 1 N-m torque is being applied throughout that time, and the speed gets straight up to ~4 RPM... and jams there... while momentum and energy continue to increase.

Note also the matching curve shapes between changing spring tension and inertia / momentum / CF as a function of changing radius.. CF /r and Hookes law for springs are basically spooning, as predicted...

I like that these are also manageable, practical designs, for once at least - you could build 'em without too much difficulty.

Now, to demonstrate the claim that this self-limiting speed property is independent of applied torque, i've raised it by an order of magnitude in the following example:




..the early initial peak can be eliminated by pre-tensioning the masses slightly farther outwards - although sacrificing run-out time. Here we hit 4 meters radius in 16 seconds, at a constant 10 N-M applied torque.

Approaching practical limits here, for this particular (entirely arbitrary) 4-5 RPM design specification... but there is one more route for expanding on the effect... which i'll quickly demonstrate momentarily..

[MrVibrating]

In linear motions, inertia is basically "mass" - ie. how much stuff you have. But in rotating systems, inertia is something more exacting, but also more flexible; fundamentally, it is a function of how much mass has been accelerated through how much space, in how much time.


In the following variation, then, the pair of 10 kg masses are replaced by two 25 gram masses, and the peak radius is down from 4 meters, to 25 cm. The flywheel reaches speeds of up to 500 RPM, but is in a high-geared transmission to the 'main wheel', which never gets much over 5 RPM. The input torque is 500 mN-m for the first 50 secs, then reversing sign and doubling to -1 N-m. Note how the system resists deceleration as well as acceleration, a bit like an alkaline battery maintaining its voltage.. applying torque of either sign causes the fly-masses to move in or out, inducing equal inertial counter-torques that oppose the applied change in speed, and this stability is retained until the sprung PE is depleted.



So that's a basic primer on this speed control concept. CF is varying in the flywheel causing the effect, but for any other attached load, including potentially inertial torques / CF or CP effects, velocity is held more-or-less constant, even while momentum and KE continue to rise...

[MrVibrating]

I mentioned that in the Robernoster concept, the springs and pulleys needed to coordinate the required trajectory could all be obviated by the addition of a second, outer, track - although i realised at the time this is likely a cul-de-sac in terms of being able to tease apart the inputs and outputs to and from the flung masses and variable-inertia flywheel, it's such an elegant mechanism it deserves to exist, even if it serves no practical purpose, for now.. so, here's what it looks like:



...obviously, the energy required to force the masses inwards under CF is equal to the KE gain being applied to the same wheel-mass driving the poles around the tracks, so in this configuration cannot test the initial concept, which involves speed-limiting the CF peaks. Still, it makes for a mesmerizing motion.. especially when the track base is also free to counter-rotate..

[MrVibrating]

...attaching a VIF to this is pointless as there's no way to utilise it the effect.. unless i add spring buffers between the masses and their slot joints to the outer track, which would seem to make more sense, instead of a separate flywheel... integrating the concept a little better, maybe...

Still, i was curious what it'd look like:



..all it does here is smooth the motion out, like you'd expect from a governor.

But some of the experiments i did over the w/e left me with the impression that this might all be too complicated already, and that linear sections mightn't be the only or best option.. So i intend to go back to basics and look in closer detail at the ins and outs of CoAM, how and where it acts to keep momentum constant, and how and where it does the opposite.

If we can generate momentum from a more conventionally-'circular' arrangement that can surely only help simplify things..

'Making' momentum could be trivially easy if my suspicions prove correct..

[MrVibrating]

...here's a couple of rough drop-test experiments:







..real scissorjacks like this are a bit of an unnecessary extravagance when pulleys or actuators would suffice, although they still have their merits... droll stuff, this, though.. gonna be doing a lot of this sort of thing, but with a focus on how these inertial torques affect the distributions of system momentum and KE, and what opportunities these principles might present..