killemaces wrote: ↑Sun Feb 14, 2010 10:17 pm
... the hunt fore a self moving wheel the answer lies not in the physics, math and other academic subjects, that is mighty fine when the working wheel is at last discovered, i think the answer lies in asking the right questions..
So here is my new question fore all ...
Which way does gravity work?
This topic has go a little side tracked. So here is the original question
The good thing about your question is the 'which' it's like a koan i.e. "What is the sound of one hand clapping?"
The answer to your question is both.
[MP] Mobiles that perpetuate - external energy allowed
If outside a gravitating system looking in - ie. considering the mutual gravitation between two bodies - then it's a force per F=mA proportional to their masses and inversely proportional to the square of their distance.
If OTOH you're inside, riding one of 'em, then it's strictly not a 'force' so much as an ambient acceleration (Galileo's principle). F=mA is no longer satisfied, since with everything accelerating downwards at equal speed, you'd be deriving different force values for different amounts of mass - which incidentally is what we call 'weight', so weight is a force per F=mA, but the gravity causing the weight isn't, at least, not from the ground reference frame, so much as this ambient uniform acceleration.
However since it's an acceleration applying between masses, and 'acceleration' is the time rate of change of velocity, and mass times velocity is 'momentum', the concise answer to the question "what is gravity?" from the classical perspective in the ground reference frame is that gravity is an ambient, constant, uniform and signed time rate of change of momentum.
It's also obviously vectored towards the local mass/energy densities and thus subject to time dilation - as gravitating masses draw closer, their clocks slow relative to that of an external observer - and so the inertia of our feet has a longer absolute period than the inertia of our heads, for example, 'inertia' being a function of how much mass has been accelerated through how much space in how much time. From the classical perspective, then, this is what endows gravity with a vector, and thus motions along that vector have positive or negative sign relative to it.
Hence from the ground FoR 'gravity' reduces to an ambient uniform +/- dp/dt; a rate of exchange of signed momentum over a given period.
A pendulum for instance conserves momentum and energy because it spends equal time shedding momentum back to gravity and time on the upswing, as it spent gaining momentum from G*t on the downswing. In other words, the +/- dp/dt is symmetrical because the periods of the I/O phases are equal.
A kiiker OTOH ('swinging') is varying their mass radius from the axis to change their moment of inertia (mass * radius squared), and since angular momentum is the conserved product of MoI and angular velocity, if the former changes, the latter instantly compensates (the 'ice-skater effect'), these speed variations extending the downswing period while shortening the upswing period, IOW spending more time being accelerated than decelerated by gravity's constant uniform acceleration, and thus gaining or losing momentum equal to the input vs output +/- dp/dt each cycle.
The I/O +/- dp/dt can also be described in terms of 'positive vs negative G-time', from the kiiker's perspective - whereas a pendulum's + and - G-times cancel to zero, if the swing's gaining momentum then G-time must be positive, if losing momentum then it's negative.
Bessler's wheels for example tended towards zero G-time at their optimal period / RPM; slowing the wheel below this (as when starting up, applying a load, or attempting to stop it) caused G-time to rise into positive territory, which is why Bessler claimed the devices gained further advantage from applied loads, and could maintain constant speed under load as when unloaded.
Conversely, applying positive torque - attempting to overspeed the wheel past the RPM at which +/- G-times cancel - caused G-time to turn negative, each cycle now shedding momentum back to G*t. This is why the system could maintain that optimum speed while also lowering the 20 kg box of bricks, for example.
This optimum RPM obviously relates to the optimum period of the diamateric weight levers, which unlike pendulums swinging against gravity alone, are obviously rotating with the system (EMGAT principle), their angular accelerations and decelerations relative to the wheel amounting to angular inertial interactions; that is, windows of opportunity for manipulating internal changes in momentum and counter-momentum.. IOW, opportunities to sink counter-momenta to G*t.
For example if a gravity-attenuated inertial interaction results in a +60% / -40% distribution of momentum and counter-momentum, or else a -60% / +40% split, either way their recombination (in a subsequent collision, say) sums to a 20% change in net system momentum in one or other angular direction..
Hence at say 56 RPM the actions of the long lever weights in the Gera wheel produced equal momentum and counter-momentum, essentially the system's kinematic 'rest frame' falling into a dynamic, homeostatic equilibrium at that speed. Above or below that speed, momentum asymmetry of opposing sign is produced, essentially auto-regulating to try rid itself of any momentum asymmetry, positive or negative, a balance only found at that ideal speed.
A further hint is found in Bessler's claim that, given enough time, it would be possible to build a wheel that turned very slowly, but with great force.. 'all while emitting a steady chattering'. IOW a busy wheel, yet slow..
This is hugely informative: neither the torque hinted at, nor the period of the rotation, match easy preconceptions of the torque source; for example if the primary source of torque were simply over-balancing weight, for a given weight radius it's gonna wanna accelerate downwards freely, right? What could be causing an OB weight to passively drop slowly but with increased force? It'd be paradoxical.. Furthermore, no matter how heavy we made the diametric weight levers, they wouldn't have enough length to 'swing' with such a slow period.. besides which, the 'steady chattering' must imply many internal interactions per angle of wheel displacement, meaning either there's hundreds of weight levers taking their turn to lift and drop relative to the wheel's slow turning, or else fewer but undergoing more than one full cycle each rotation, ie. at higher speed.
First principles, then; the net torque being output by any Bessler wheel is not simply a function of classical over-balancing torque, but is further augmented by momentum gains from asymmetric inertial interactions - potentially many such cycles per wheel rotation - sinking momenta or counter-momenta to a +/- G-time asymmetry.
The process is over-unity because the primary workload - angular inertia of the weight levers - is constant, and invariant of system RPM; each cycle, regardless of its resulting momentum symmetry, performs the same amount of work, for the same amount of input energy / effort expended. The net input energy thus scales as the per-cycle input energy times the number of elapsed cycles. Because of this, doubling the speed, say, only requires doubling the input energy / work done.. at least while below optimum speed.
But from the external, ground FoR, if the wheel's doubled in speed while its composition hasn't changed, then it's quadrupled in energy.
What's happened is that the wheel's internal momentum asymmetry has resulted in a divergent inertial reference frame; from the external frame, the ambient speed of the turning wheel is adding to the velocity of the internal accelerations, but from their point of view, 1 kg-m² of angular inertia, say, is always 1 kg-m², regardless of its angular velocity relative to anything outside, and accelerating 1 kg-m² by say 1 rad/s from relative stasis always costs half a Joule.
Again, maintenance of this precondition is only possible with an oscillating angular inertia.. it has to keep stopping and starting relative to the wheel / accelerating reference frame, in order to repeatedly reset the energy-cost of further accelerations to its minimum possible value per ½Iw².
So for instance 10 such accelerations in succession would spend 10 * ½ = 5 J. But if each were fully-asymmetric, resulting in a 1 kg-m²-rad/s rise in net system momentum per cycle, then the resulting 1 kg-m² of inertia at the final accumulated speed of 10 rad/s would have 50 J - 10x more energy than we've spent. That's the maths simplified, anyway.
GPE/KE symmetry is thus broken because the 'height' term in GPE-Gmh and the 'velocity' term in KE=½Iw² are no longer in the same reference frame - the velocity component of the accumulated momentum delta simply adding to that of the internal accelerations relative to the external or 'absolute' reference frame.
The momentum gain comes from gravity and time.
The energy gain comes from inertia.
'Inertia' IMHO seems sufficiently explained in terms of confined localised charge trajectories conserved at lightspeed per special relativity and Hestenes et al. But that's another discussion..
As for the 'standard model' definition - per the scare quotes, this is where things get more ambiguous:
• the Pauli exclusion principle is the dichotomy between integer and half-spin quantum momenta of particles, bosons and fermions
• fermions make up all the baryonic matter we see and interact with, and cannot occupy the same quantum energy states (Fermi energies / positions etc.); ie 'superposition exclusion'.
• bosons (such as photons) can occupy superpositions; merging quantum energy states and sharing Fermi levels
• the SM holds that all fundamental forces (ie. the 4 known thus far) are mediated by 'gauge bosons'; so, photons for EM force, +/- W/Z bosons for the weak force, gluons for the strong force - all confirmed at this point - and thus positing 'gravitons' as the carrier for gravity.
There's a further finer point re. polarities of these gauge bosons: they can be either attractive and repulsive - that is, trading both positively and negatively-signed momenta in units of h-bar, depending on the relative directions of the accelerations between interacting masses or charges, or else repulsive-only, depending on the integer number (0, 1 or 2) of the boson in question.
To further complicate matters, half-spin fermions of like-sign (so two up or down-spin polarised electrons, for example) can be forced to merge their spins to form a new 'quasi' boson, thus eliminating their mutual Coulomb repulsion and freeing up the Fermi levels they previously occupied while allowing them to adopt a temporarily lower energy state as a combined pair, while also enabling any higher-energy free electrons to drop down into those vacated quantum energy states. The integer number of the resulting boson being the sum of its component electrons, in this case ½ + ½ = 1. If two more like-polarised electrons joined that same condensate then you'd get a spin-2 boson. Which is not to imply the graviton's made of 4 electrons obviously, just that quantum mechanics allows fermion half-spins to combine to form integer-spin bosons if that allows the system to drop into a lower energy state.
Obviously, when these condensates disentangle, Pauli exclusion re-applies, along with Coulomb repulsion, resulting in a so-called 'bosenova' as the component fermions are ejected under high mutual repulsion; incidentally it is a time-asymmetric interaction applying these principles that forms the basis of Rossi's Ecat technology, generating condensates using less energy than their resulting dissociation produces, and the gain, once again, a function of the I/O +/-dp/dt of +/- h-bar asymmetry between the interacting charges and vacuum.
So i don't know whether a graviton exists or is needed (beyond say a more classical / relativistic explanation), however it'd be a spin-2 boson, mutually attractive, probably fundamental (ie. gauge group not quasi / composite), and like all gauge bosons, these are corralled from vacuum on demand.. IOW, the graviton flux is only there when two or more bodies are interacting gravitationally. They propagate at lightspeed - effectively instantaneously - imparting negative h-bar to the bodies, from the vacuum / ZPE, itself a store of effectively-infinite ambient quantum momentum per Heisenberg and QED / QFT etc.
That's probably the final key point to press home; these force-mediating gauge bosons aren't emitted or absorbed by interacting masses or charges themselves - which would violate every conservation law in the book - but rather produced from the vacuum in response to relative accelerations between interacting masses and charges.
As ever though, you don't need QED to derive the Lorentz force or indeed Lenz's law from SR, any more than you need QFT to explain gravity or Newton's laws: local rate of time is a function of local mass/energy density, inertia is a function of how much mass has been accelerated through how much space in how much time, and gravity is a function of the resulting ambient dp/dt between the center of the earth and outer space; a force/time differential, per F=dp/dt, of 9.80665 kg-m/s per kg of gravitating mass.
To wrap up, 'fundamental forces' - those which the standard model would seek to offer mediator particles for - are those which reduce, in effect, to time-constant rates of exchange of momentum. With the other three fundamental forces, this has been confirmed in terms of quantum trades of +/- h-bar - and so the EM constant (AKA fine-structure constant) 'alpha' reduces to a time-constant rate of change of h-bar. However this description remains true of gravity in classical terms anyway, regardless of whether the gravitational constant is also a function of a graviton-mediated interaction or not, and whether we take F=mA or F=dp/dt, any time asymmetry between input and output phases of a closed-loop cycle will gain or lose force and momentum accordingly; crucially, for our purposes, momentum sourced directly from an I/O F*t or dp/dt asymmetry obviates the usual requirement to push against some other inertia, or, thus, incur the usual opposing counter-momenta, allowing an otherwise-closed system (such as a kiiker) to accumulate angular momentum from the force constant (ie. the quantum vacuum and time) directly. This in turn can result in a divergent inertial frame, isolated from inertial interaction with its environment and the ground or absolute reference frame, transposing the effective 'energy' value of its internal work done by the half-square of the velocity component of the anomalous ('reactionless') momentum change.
'Fictitious' forces such as centrifugal force do not satisfy this condition - so any gains in momentum made by kiiking under CF force alone, in an otherwise closed system, will always come at the expense of the net system RPM producing that CF force.. the net system momentum always remaining constant / net zero.
Our objective here is a gravity-assisted / gravitationally-augmented asymmetric inertial interaction, causing an accumulation of closed-loop gains in momentum, ultimately sourced from an input /output gravity * time asymmetry, the energy cost of which is RPM-invariant, so that the same work done each cycle causes the same relative inertial accelerations, of which the +/- net momentum symmetry per cycle is a function of RPM, or, at least, a periodic inertial interaction; if the wheel's below its preferential speed then it gains momentum (positive net G-time) per cycle, and if above, sheds it (negative net G-time). Only at its ideal / design speed are the internal inertial interactions and their resulting momentum / counter-momentum distributions equal and opposite. Any applied load that would slow the RPM thus elicits a compensating momentum asymmetry that effectively creates more energy, and if the load's reversed and tries to over-speed the system the compensating inertial asymmetry switches to destroying energy by sinking momentum, rather than counter-momentum, to G*t.
The reported behaviour of "running at equal speed when lowering or raising the load, as when unloaded" together with the claim of a low-speed, high power application being possible, squarely eliminates mere over-balancing torque as the primary torque source. If everything must, of necessity, go around together, then the high torque of the mooted slow-turning system cannot be due to over-balancing torque alone, and furthermore there must be internally-asymmetric inertial interactions ongoing to arrest the free-fall of the weighted descending side of such a wheel; that is, the over-balancing weight can drop only as fast as the accumulating +/- dp/dt asymmetry feeding off of it will allow, IOW there is a flux of torques and counter-torques, the net effect of which is a slow descent of an otherwise freely-overbalancing weight that under any other circumstances would keel at a rate equal to the OB torque divided by the system MoI per Newton's 2nd.
We evidently need OB torque to have a gravitating mass able to source or sink momentum from or to G*t, but mustn't waste time searching for an effective GPE-KE asymmetry if both those terms are still in the ground FoR - the weights heard landing on the descending side of the two-way wheels, quite aside from any OB torque so produced, were also closing asymmetric inertial interactions, consolidating non-cancelling +/- dp/dt distributions, and would presumably be doing so in much the same manner in the high-torque / low RPM application Bessler alludes to.
Final thought, here: EM force also reduces to a time-constant rate of exchange of +/- h-bar between interacting charges and the quantum vacuum, per the fine-structure constant alpha and QED. Thus, in principle at least, if we can recover Bessler's mechanical solutions they can probably be applied equally to passive magnetic interactions, or indeed electro-mechanical ones. Sufficient electrical substitutions, if possible, may obviate moving parts entirely.. for the concepts outlined above at least, the peculiarities of gravity per se seem to provide little functionality that couldn't be better served by EM force, all else being equal.
At root of all this is the fact that the physics of non-unity systems (over or under / non-dissipative loss mechs!) generalise to systems with non-constant momentum; ie. that what might otherwise be anticipated to be a closed thermodynamic system can be opened by an effective violation of Newton or Lenz's laws, due to the dependence of the conservation of energy upon the more fundamental time conservation of momentum - which is what the 'thermodynamic' universe really cares about. Thus an asymmetric I/O +/- dp/dt accumulation never really 'breaks' CoE, so much as depending upon it holding precisely as it's supposed to in its respective terms of reference; the real trick is moving the goalposts without touching them! Bessler's wheels didn't want to make energy, they just wanted to get rid of their internal momentum asymmetry, the 'punctum quietus' their weights unceasingly sought, driven by CoM and CoE, not in spite of them. At optimum speed unloaded, the wheels were in their minimum energy states, neither creating or destroying energy over basic entropic losses, their internal momenta and counter-momenta mostly cancelling.
Bessler's EMGAT principle shows that he had solved the vis-viva dispute between the primacy of momentum over energy prior to any of his contemporaries - essentially, EMGAT encapsulates the concept of causing a divergent inertial frame. The Toys page depicts 5 such cycles of an asymmetric inertial interaction, implying one that is 75% dissipative per cycle, but accumulating the velocity component of the remaining 25% work done, to cause a 25% rise in net I/O efficiency per successive cycle, and so culminating in the implication of 125% energy gain at conclusion of the fifth cycle. The lower hammer toy represents the oscillating angular inertial interactions from which the momentum asymmetry is produced. The scissorjack - per MT 41 - represents the means by which torque other than OB torque may be applied to the statorless wheel by internal displacements, and equivalently, how the wheel's motion may be used to perform internal displacements without recourse to a stator.. again, the key point MT 41 obfuscates being the EMGAT principle (no stators!). The upper hammer toy represents some interaction that causes a change in condition resulting in the momentum asymmetry from the swinging weight levers; presumably some kind of gravitational interaction, perhaps inclusive of OB torque, but also gravitationally biasing an angular inertial interaction, or else kiiking / leveraging an I/O G*t asymmetry. Whatever; my whole point is that, with few clues, much can be deduced from first principles.. that the rules for creating and destroying energy and momentum are implicit within their respective terms of conservation.. read between the lines, and a little clue here or there from Bessler is just enough to steer us towards the inexorable, only possible solution..
So there you go - that's basically what gravity is, along with the role it would have to play in any successful replication of JB's work.. it's why perpetually-overbalancing wheels are impossible, but also why gravitationally-augmented inertial asymmetries could result in mechanical OU that appeared indistinguishable from a working (if paradoxical) 'gravity mill'.
It's also why i'm gonna find the solution before anyone else. :P
MrVibrating wrote: ↑Fri Sep 24, 2021 6:09 pm
What is gravity?
... To further complicate matters, half-spin fermions of like-sign (so two up or down-spin polarised electrons, for example) can be forced to merge their spins to form a new 'quasi' boson, thus eliminating their mutual Coulomb repulsion and freeing up the Fermi levels they previously occupied while allowing them to adopt a temporarily lower energy state as a combined pair, while also enabling any higher-energy free electrons to drop down into those vacated quantum energy states. The integer number of the resulting boson being the sum of its component electrons, in this case ½ + ½ = 1. If two more like-polarised electrons joined that same condensate then you'd get a spin-2 boson. Which is not to imply the graviton's made of 4 electrons obviously, just that quantum mechanics allows fermion half-spins to combine to form integer-spin bosons if that allows the system to drop into a lower energy state.
Obviously, when these condensates disentangle, Pauli exclusion re-applies, along with Coulomb repulsion, resulting in a so-called 'bosenova' as the component fermions are ejected under high mutual repulsion; incidentally it is a time-asymmetric interaction applying these principles that forms the basis of Rossi's Ecat technology, generating condensates using less energy than their resulting dissociation produces ...
Well done you have really given this subject some thought and you are definately not a 'Pill Pusher'.
I have read your thesis with interest and many sections have made an impression. The above left a two mile creator in my mind. Pity I was holding the grenade at the time.
So killemaces; Does that answer your 'Which' question?
P.S. As a great man once said 'It's not easy being green' [United Nations]
[MP] Mobiles that perpetuate - external energy allowed
