Flippin' Flywheels

[Grimer]

Sorry Frank, I guess I went a little overboard there, didn't sleep too well last nite - we've had a lot of fun together on the forum so sorry to rag on you.

I described the process as an NG/EG oscillation cycle, you called it a NG/EG gravity cycle.

On a positive note, this concept has now passed peer review by our forum's meanest, nastiest, kick em when there down, shoot em in the back, never give an inch, most highly physics trained, hard core Bessler skeptic on the forum, Eccentrically1.

I purposely picked ECC1 because he was a skeptic. Although he had some concerns about air friction (I do too), could not find a fatal flaw anywhere in the documentation or simulation. We went thru all the math and no errors there either.

And he didn't seem real happy about it as I think he thought it would be a breeze to debunk. Surprisingly there were no personal attacks or even
bad language involved! (He's actually a very nice guy!).

But now he seems to have disappeared from the forum! WTF??

Maybe he's gone off to steal a march on building a working device, eh! :-)

[cloud camper]

Let's edit your "bottom line" a bit:

Pulling mass inwards creates more angular momentum whilst extending it
out creates more linear momentum.

You are cycling between 3rd derivative energy and 1st derivative energy.

The boundary case is where the radius tends to infinity to give pure linear momentum and zero to give pure angular momentum.

Frank - I really like this bit - it shows the reason why we need the rotating environment to create 3rd derivative energy.

The NG part (Newtonian Gravity) is necessary as a startup mechanism but cannot continue to sustain itself. This GPE energy is then oscillated/transferred to the EG (Centrifugal or Ersatz) part in a 1/1 GPE to RKE conversion to create an environment in which 3rd derivative energy can be created/amplified. The rotating wheel then provides a reaction mass against the jerk reaction that slows the wheel but in turn creates a large spike that causes an external weight to "shoot" up much higher than the original NG GPE could do on it's own. We do not need a stator as the rotating wheel provides the reaction mass for the jerk reaction. So Bessler was right - no stator required!! (maybe)

The tricky part is then performing the resets for which I have chosen an escapement mechanism but maybe there's an easier way??

[Grimer]

You have got so far along the path you've taken that I think you would be well advised to pursue it to a successful conclusion even if there are easier ways.

I particularly like your escapement idea since one only has to achieve the smallest of energy gains to get PM.

[ME]

... and there goes another beautiful topic: Ersatzed!
Gosh, when even the ignore option doesn't cut it any more...

Frank - I really like this bit - it shows the reason why we need the rotating environment to create 3rd derivative energy.

I was under the impression most of such rotational stuff is simply explainable by Centripetal force and Angular momentum...
I used springs in rotation myself as casual and relative simple examples (like here) just as many others did including mrVibrating if I'm correct.

Cloud camper, perhaps you are the one who's able to explain or formulate this "3rd derivative energy" thing ?
How does it work, which formula's apply, and what are the benefits over Centripetal Force for example.

I like your concept, as far as you explained in your own topic. But I rather not see it drown and confused by someones unsubstantiated ersatz terminology. Unless you could shine some better light on this?

[eccentrically1]

The rotating wheel then provides a reaction mass against the jerk reaction that slows the wheel but in turn creates a large spike that causes an external weight to "shoot" up much higher than the original NG GPE could do on it's own.

Because it's a simulation! I told you when you finished your test rig it wouldn't get the same result.

ME: 3rd derivative "energy" is jerk. A force.

[ME]

Yes I'm well aware what the 3rd derivative should be.. I use it myself.
Some arbitrary example:
* http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewt ... 832#141832
* http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewt ... 873#141873
* http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewt ... 726#149726

I just like to see a mathematically explanation of how this 3rd derivative (which is a mathematical term) is supposed to be so beneficial in a rotating environment.
There's only noise to be found as explanation while getting combined with some other made-up term no one uses.
I just like such (mathematical) principle to have a solid basis.
For now it's very confusing.

I understand there might be a need of having something of a legacy... but at least make it worthwhile for all of us.

[eccentrically1]

The mathematical explanation for the beneficial effects in a rotating environment is found in the time term. The force is applied in a shorter span. Examples: a baseball / bat, a golf ball / club.

[cloud camper]

Yes, thanks ECC1, the exciting aspect is that jerk is a cubed force so if one is able to design a mechanism that creates a cubed force for even a short period, large effects are created that can be taken advantage of.

It needs to be stressed that these are transient (very short) impact like reactions, not steady state conditions like RKE or angular momentum calculations, just like ECC1 says.

These reactions can then be "engineered" to produce as hard or soft an impact as one desires.

If one sets up the appropriate environment, masses can be set into vertical oscillation with a jerk reaction that oscillate greatly about their at rest COE position, creating results that mimic what Bessler reported (at least in simulation).

The idea is then to trap a vertical oscillation at it's zenith so as to “freeze� or trap the oscillated energy such that we preserve it’s maximum attained GPE.

ME, I am claiming, asserting, or promising nothing in this discussion. There are no 12 foot poles to cross a 10 foot creek. These remarks are simply “shop talk� between Frank, ECC and myself to discuss a provisional hypothesis and reaction phemomena that we find interesting. I am not trying to convince anyone of anything, just following a logical path to a hopefully working prototype proceeding thru hypothesis (inspired by Frank’s many years of preaching 3rd derivative energies), simulation, peer review then physical testing. Where this all leads I have no idea!

I am still researching the concept and Frank and I have friendly disagreements whether energy is being actually created, or merely “frozen� in an out of COE position.

Unfortunately there is very little useful information available that describe the energy aspects of jerk physics as all efforts in machine design is get to rid of jerk reactions, not create more! One place to start is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerk_%28physics%29 but again all studies are dedicated to eliminating it.

The physical units of Jerk are M/sec^3. No one can really tell you what these units actually represent in everyday terms other than an acceleration of an acceleration but the reactions are definitely produced in simulation.

The best visualization of it would have to be the Starship Enterprise as it goes into Hyperdrive!!

I would like to hold off presenting the concept in detail until physical results are obtained and such time as I understand the reaction variables better.

Also, because of my long term friendship with Frank, I have adopted his terminology for certain concepts such as NG and EG. I agree it is nonstandard but even substituting AG as artificial gravity instead of EG is not entirely descriptive.

Frank makes the point that EG is actually totally natural, not artificial as any rotating environment in nature is subject to it.

Actual Artificial Gravity (AG) could be scientifically engineered through high voltage high frequency electronics, magnetics, who knows? Maybe we need a new term for gravity created by Centrifugal/Centripetal forces in a rotating environment. So we use “Ersatz� for now, maybe in want of a more descriptive term.

I would like to thank ECC1 once again for his extremely kind donation of his time to peer review this concept. I knew I would never get a ringing endorsement from a hard core skeptic but rather a fresh set of highly trained and unbiased eyes to spot any fatal errors.

The whole concept of free energy goes against all of his training (mine too!) so we have to respect his viewpoint that such ideas are just not possible. He does argue that the physical results will not match the frictionless simulation and of course I totally concur, the question is to what degree?

[ME]

Am I correct in detecting three totally different explanations of 3rd derivative energy by three different people??

NICE SHOP-TALK GUYS (not)!!!

Maybe we need a new term for gravity created by Centrifugal/Centripetal forces in a rotating environment

No we absolutely don't !!

Again:
Artificial gravity, (or EG ) is simply Centrifugal force.
The reason to even consider "Artificial Gravity" is the sheer amount of references you get when you try to look it up: at least it sparks the imagination - which is absolutely needed for PMM-research.
AG or (centrifugal) gives the most and broadest explanation in both visuals and mathematics, where EG only confuses, never explained, zero references: Zero ! - I ask, but still not even a lousy theory, a reference or even a hint besides a movie-screenshot.
Ersatz, Not Real, Totally Fake! <-- fact check.

Centripetal force is mathematically the correct designation: perfectly suitable and fully explained.

[eccentrically1]

We've established that ersatz is a synonym for artificial, and Frank won't back off. Who cares if he insists on using ersatz or AG for CF, or 3rd derivative energy for jerk force? We know, I hope by now, what he means. It's not worth arguing. Most important, it won't change the math.

[ME]

We've established that ersatz is a synonym for artificial

No we did not.

• ersatz
  adjective UK &#8203; /&#712;e&#601;.zæts/ US &#8203; /&#712;er.z&#593;&#720;ts/ disapproving
  
  - (of a product) made or used as a substitute, typically an inferior one, for something else
  - used instead of something else, usually because the other thing is too expensive or rare
  -Not real or genuine
  
  https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/ersatz
  http://dictionary.cambridge.org/diction ... ish/ersatz

.. and Frank won't back off.

That doesn't make it any more true or valuable.
According to one pattern his probable motives are likely: 'legacy' reasons.

Who cares if he insists on using ersatz or AG for CF, or 3rd derivative energy for jerk force?

At least I do. And I think we all should. It is called verification.
We need to know what it is before we can apply the math, or verify a mechanism... for now it's a meaningless statement.
So why, why, why use something when what it probable represents* already exists...
*) that's why I keep asking.... I care. Because there's no direct answer I just assume Grimer doesn't care himself, or doesn't know.

I was the one who tried to make a comparison with Artificial Gravity, or Centrifugal.... but that's still not confirmed, perhaps I'm wrong?
In case I'm right: why change...? pride?

This talk is Not for My sake, Not for the sake of a small Splinter-group, but for All our sakes....
We are on a discussion-board, right?
I thought the objective with PMM-research was to circumvent certain limits and not to complicate the SH*T out of it, which is totally unnecessary.

And then let's say one found motion. Any theoretical attempt based on this nonsense can't get past the local doorknob. What math is involved, what definition does it have, where does it apply.... never answered... So it needs to be rewritten before someone understands...
My main question: Why bother deviating in the first place?

And the latest attempt for "3rd derivative energy" are three different things... (jerk for example is a change in acceleration: not specific for rotational stuff)

We know, I hope by now, what he means.

What part of "never explained, zero references" shows any form of understanding?

Please find us all some reference for this question where it is fully explained:

• ME wrote:
  I just like to see a mathematically explanation of how this 3rd derivative (which is a mathematical term) is supposed to be so beneficial in a rotating environment.

Here's mine: http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewt ... 738#149738

It's not worth arguing.

Yes it is, because we should simply use the math and tools available when they are sufficient, available for everyone, not confusing, with all kinds of ways one is able to find and learn about the information.
But actually I agree: this whole discussion should have been totally unnecessary.

• To emphasize
  Please don't believe me:
  @ALL: Try comparing the results of an online search for the following keywords:
  + Centripetal force
  + Artificial gravity
  + Ersatz

Most important, it won't change the math.

What math ???

[justsomeone]

Outstanding post ME. I truly think Frank uses these terms to try to sound smarter than the rest of us. I generally just skip over his posts and on to the next ones.

[agor95]

Outstanding post ME - agreed

Now lets focus on Bessler and not on complex writing.

ME I need you help to cut down some over complex formula.

It will help us all.

Regards

[wazeb]

Outstanding post ME and justsomeone

[Grimer]

Outstanding post ME. I truly think Frank uses these terms to try to sound smarter than the rest of us. I generally just skip over his posts and on to the next ones.

No. I use them because I am smarter. ;-)