Into the Vanishing Point..

A Bessler, gravity, free-energy free-for-all. Registered users can upload files, conduct polls, and more...

Moderator: scott

Post Reply
MrVibrating
Addict
Addict
Posts: 2875
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2010 12:19 am
Location: W3

Into the Vanishing Point..

Post by MrVibrating »

Suppose we have a wheel, upon which a single point mass can slide in and out radially.

Gravity and losses are disabled. The area of interest is purely the nature of the momentum and energy distributions caused by this simple interaction.

So we have an orbiting mass on a rotating wheel, and we move that mass inwards and outwards, observing its effects. Nothing else. No gravity, no losses, just two moving parts. Wheel rotates, mass slides in and out.

What we're interested in is how these 'radial translations' influence the system's balance of momentum and energy.

Initially, i'm not going to be dealing with springs or other forms of PE - at this stage that would massively complicate an already perplexing system, featuring as it does not one but two moving parts. Combining both linear and angular motions, together at the same time in the same system, is more than enough to be getting our heads around for now. :|

However springs and GPE will enter into the equation later, as they spice things up nicely..


---------------------------------------------



So, to ease us into the discussion, below is an idealised configuration:

Image


- we have a 1kg sliding mass aboard a notionally-massless 1 meter radius wheel (again, without gravity or losses). Starting radius is 100 mm.

- a constant-velocity motor is briefly applied at startup to set the system at 20 RPM, and during this time the mass is pinned in place. This phase is over in the first few milliseconds, so essentially the system begins in uniform motion with the sliding mass unlocked and free to slide out under centrifugal force.

- the only other component is a perfectly-elastic rope; 1 meter in length (ie. equal to the wheel radius); it stops the sliding mass from flying off the edge of the wheel, and also bounces it back in again, perfectly conservatively.

At peak radius the sim is paused for a few seconds for clarity.
Attachments
coamtest1.wm2d
(12.02 KiB) Downloaded 100 times
MrVibrating
Addict
Addict
Posts: 2875
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2010 12:19 am
Location: W3

Post by MrVibrating »

Obviously, massless rotors are a hard-to-source component, however the reason for it here is that consequently, the radially-translating mass represents all of the system mass. There is no other mass present.

Likewise, it represents all of the system momentum and energy (there's never any PE in the rope, at max extension it just flips the sign of the KE without ever storing any in intervening computation steps).

So this should be pretty much the picture most of us would have anticipated - the momentum is constant.

However, the KE is also constant - and this may seem counter-intuitive - it did to me anyway, since i expected KE to drop with angular velocity; of course, it would, if the mass was only allowed to move out slowly, but since it is sliding freely here, it converts its angular KE neatly into linear KE, then flips that same exchange on the rebound.

There's nothing more to say about this config for now; the next question is, obviously, what the effects of assigning mass to the wheel will be....
MrVibrating
Addict
Addict
Posts: 2875
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2010 12:19 am
Location: W3

re: Into the Vanishing Point..

Post by MrVibrating »

So here's the same config, the only difference being that the wheel now has mass. 10 kg of it.

Image

The sliding mass remains 1 kg.


The net system momentum and KE remain constant.

However we see that the sliding mass gains momentum at the expense of the wheel.

All very routine, and nothing to write home about...

And so that's pretty much the whole subject done and dusted. The result's scale-invariant so any arbitrary parameter values can be extrapolated. This seems to be a fairly comprehensive and sufficient treatment of the matter. You could maybe jazz it up a little like this perhaps:

Image

..this is exactly the first sim - 1 kg sliding mass, 1 meter radius of the arc sections, plus a 1 meter linear section. The 'rotor' has become a beam, but here it is massless as in the first sim above.


Here's the same thing again, but now the rotor beam is 10 kg, per the 2nd sim above:

Image


..but really, this little embellishment adds nothing - the core dynamic is very simple and straightforward, momentum and KE are conserved, and it's clear to see how and why they're apportioned as the interaction progresses.
Attachments
coamtest4.wm2d
(16 KiB) Downloaded 98 times
coamtest3.wm2d
(14.28 KiB) Downloaded 109 times
coamtest2.wm2d
(13.52 KiB) Downloaded 96 times
MrVibrating
Addict
Addict
Posts: 2875
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2010 12:19 am
Location: W3

Post by MrVibrating »

Is this really the simplest application of the system though?

I mean, we're combining angular momentum with linear, and while one of our masses is a point-mass, the other, 'reaction' mass, is a whacking great spread of wheel. It's all over the place.

Is the wheel even strictly necessary? All it does is provide mass, or not, as well as something to attach the sliding mass onto.

A circle is certainly simple.. but it looks like all we really need here is a beam, or pole - a single radial spoke that the sliding mass can run in and out on.

Then, we could make the other mass, a point-mass too - and so ditch the angular dimensions for its momentum, keeping all the system momentum and KE to their linear X and Y components.

We could vary the amount of this mass, but also its radius. Much more re-configurable than a dowdy old lump of wheel.


Something like this:

Image


...the beam could remain massless, so that the fixed mass and the sliding mass represent all of the system mass, and thus momentum and KE.

Plus, since this is sim-world, we can have otherwise-unfeasibly long-lengthed massless beams - why stick with a one-meter radius, when we could have ten? Obviously, this would serve little purpose if we really had exhaustively tested the interaction already... the results scale linearly, so all else being equal, a higher radius just raises all the other values accordingly..

Except, we haven't actually yet scratched the surface of this issue. It's actually a fair bit more complicated..

The thing is, we started out at a 100 mm radius, then extending out to 1 meter, and back in again. So we left out 1/10th of the available radial displacement...

Surely there can't be any special surprises lurking in that wee little corner? Nothing that would radically alter the outcome of the above tests? Who knows, but having a much longer radius gives us the opportunity to zoom in and examine the full range of this simple, boring little interaction...

Wheel / beam goes around, one mass stays at constant radius, another changes radius, momentum's conserved, energy's conserved, no major surprises so far.. what could possibly go wrong?
MrVibrating
Addict
Addict
Posts: 2875
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2010 12:19 am
Location: W3

Post by MrVibrating »

...the thing is, that whatever mass, radius and RPM we choose as starting conditions, as the sliding mass moves inwards, it's traveling progressively less distance per unit angle of rotation - because circumference shrinks with radius...

...as long as the system is able to accelerate as the mass moves inwards, then velocity and thus momentum and KE can keep rising, despite the fact that the distance the mass is flying through is getting ever-smaller per degree of rotation...

...if however something's holding back this acceleration, preventing speed from rising, then since mass is constant, RPM is constant and distance/angle is shrinking, momentum and KE must also be reducing..!

Therefore we can pull an orbiting mass inwards, directly causing it to decelerate, losing momentum and energy!

Of course, if the inertia preventing acceleration - our 'fixed' mass, here - is gaining all the momentum and energy being lost by the sliding mass, then everything's still conserved...

However, this is not what happens!

Instead, as the sliding mass enters the center of rotation, its velocity and momentum go to zero, yet this momentum is not transferred over to the fixed mass! Instead, it appears to just vacate the system!

To be absolutely clear on this - we're talking about a system of rotating mass, some of which is also able to slide radially... and nothing else. No ropes or pulleys, collisions, springs or gravity etc. The momentum disappears because it de-orbited. It splashed down into the center, and apparently sank without trace.

Intriguingly however the system KE continues to rise smoothly and seamlessly - looking at the graph plot alone, there's no sign of half the system momentum disappearing. Instead the energy value of the remaining momentum becomes inflated!

Here's a quick demo, 1 kg radially translating (RT) mass versus 1 kg non-radially translating (NRT):

Image

..as you can see i've designed the sim to be easily re-configurable across a useful range (10:1) of telemetry.

It's a bit late tonight and i'm knackered, but tomorrow night the config i wanna look at is 10 kg RT vs 1 kg NRT.

In particular, i'm going to compare how the momentum and energy evolve across a 10 meter change in radius, between halfway out at 5 meters, vs when disappearing into the center. Ie. i'll look at the change in momentum and KE for 1 meter of radial travel between 6 and 5 meters, and then from the final 1 meter down to zero.

Obviously, one dynamic is that momentum gets cheaper to buy, energy-wise, towards the center, and more expensive the further out we get.

Another is that momentum disappears from the system, even while energy continues to rise unabated...

Think about that for a second...

...think about it in reverse:

- if it can be reversed, then instead of eating momentum while costing us energy...

..it'd be spewing momentum from nowhere, while paying us energy!

Sounds crazy i know. But it is what it is..

I'll attach the sim here in case anyone wants a play with it between now and tomorrow... it's all pretty self-explanatory. I use Notepad and calculator for the real analysis - momentum as a function of changing radius and KE etc. etc.

It looks like there's some kind of 'hole' here... whether there's anything down there i don't know, but i'm getting roped up..
Attachments
pullitin2.1.wm2d
(31.15 KiB) Downloaded 100 times
MrVibrating
Addict
Addict
Posts: 2875
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2010 12:19 am
Location: W3

Post by MrVibrating »

..just to clarify why i think a high ratio of RT to NRT mass could be interesting - we're maximising the proportion of net momentum that's going to be flushed down the plughole. The remaining 1 kg of non-radially translating mass will thus have the maximal rise in energy value of its momentum.

Cheap momentum, vs expensive momentum. This seems like a potentially useful variable.

Then we have the disappearing momentum. Doubtless there's a perfectly rational explanation - circumference and 'edge speed' falling with radius is obviously the causal condition, and maybe there is no challenge to conservation of momentum... but even then, maybe we can turn it into one.

Whatever, we know Bessler's masses alternated inner / outer positions. They were also purportedly hollow lead tubes - the ideal point-mass dimensions, and potentially each accommodating an axle; able to exercise their angular inertia and so resist converting decaying orbital momentum into axial momentum.. whereas if the cylinders couldn't independently rotate, then drawing them into the exact center would want to spin them up... so there's a possible line of consistency there.

Ultimately though mass and gravity are static fields, whereas OU requires time-varying fields and forces. Masses alternating inner / outer positions are induing +/- inertial torques, so if we're looking for free energy from momentum then this could be fertile territory.

Fertile something, anyway..
MrVibrating
Addict
Addict
Posts: 2875
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2010 12:19 am
Location: W3

re: Into the Vanishing Point..

Post by MrVibrating »

OK so here's the same system, but now pulling 10 kg in, while 1 kg remains out:

Image

My immediate area of interest is the changing Joule value of momentum during this interaction.


The "interaction", remember, is just 11 kg of mass orbiting at 10 meter radius at 1 RPM, 10 kg of which gets slowly pulled into the center at the rate of 1 mm / sec., while leaving the remaining 1 kg out at the perimeter.

So, i'm gonna do a quick analysis of how the energy and momentum change as the 10 kg mass gets pulled inwards.

But before that, some points that immediately stand out:

- Unlike the previous sim, pulling just 1 kg in while 1 kg remained out, and which caused the former to decelerate throughout the interaction, here the 10 kg mass (denoted by the green meters) initially accelerates, as we would normally expect.

- i've rested the sim position cursor (the little black dot) at the approximate point where the 10 kg mass's acceleration peaks, from whereon it begins decelerating; so the black dot represents the same moment in time on all the meters here..

- note the apparent lag between the velocity-dependent components (momentum, KE and velocity itself), versus total force and acceleration... the mass has lost momentum and KE even while still accelerating!

- despite this, and not to mention that its momentum subsequently drops off a cliff, there's not so much as a tremor on the 'Sys KE' plot!

- similarly, looking at the curves for the fixed mass (in red), there's no sign of a commensurate rise that would offset the disappearing momentum of the radially-translating mass! Yet if net system momentum is falling, while KE continues rising, then the energy value of the remaining momentum has risen!

- a plain-speak explanation of the noted time lag would seem worthwhile. Doubtless it's trivial, but if we're looking for OU then we need to scrutinize the meaning and potential value of these kinds of time-dependencies! Here, peak force only occurs after peak momentum is reached - they're not aligned. Could this represent some kind of window of opportunity, or profit margin?

- note that at this point, the radius of the translating mass is still 1.8 meters... we're not dealing with some kind of small-scale inaccuracy, this is a pronounced effect..

- i don't notice any sign of this lag in the previous 1:1 sim either, though perhaps it's masked somehow.. but presumably it can be tuned up and down somewhat..


Bessler was using masses alternating inner / outer positions, so it's almost inevitable that they were subject to these kinds of dynamics. Is it possible to pull a mass inwards in some way that sets the stage for some kind of gainful reciprocal interaction when the masses swap inner / outer roles? Ie. maybe the really interesting dynamics aren't even apparent in a single-stroke plot like this, yet are there any hints in that direction?

Currently the mass is being forced inwards, using further input energy to overcome centrifugal force, although the system is otherwise coasting freely. However, this is also of course one reason why the momentum's not constant.

Yet the other clear reason is the simple fact that orbital momentum disappears when orbit itself does. No orbit = no orbital momentum.

In the very first sim above, we saw how momentum and KE are fully conserved when we just let the mass fly outwards completely passively.

Yet that doesn't appear to be what really happens at all below a minimum threshold radius! So what's going to happen when we just nudge a stationary mass out of the center, and let it be flung outwards, albeit slowly, at the same rate it was pulled in? Logically - i mean, just backtracking what's already in evidence - the system momentum is going to have to jump up - pretty much doubling - as the translating mass crosses this threshold radius on its way back out...

But that's getting a little ahead, for now i wanna summarise some easily-digestible figures from the above results...
Attachments
pullitin2.2.wm2d
(30.5 KiB) Downloaded 105 times
Last edited by MrVibrating on Thu Feb 16, 2017 2:39 am, edited 1 time in total.
MrVibrating
Addict
Addict
Posts: 2875
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2010 12:19 am
Location: W3

Post by MrVibrating »

I'm now going to sample the momentum and KE corresponding to two 1-meter sections of the 10-meter total translation; firstly from 6 meters down to 5 meters, and then again for the final meter into the center.


from 6 m down to 5 m
------------------------

6 m:

frame = 3211

RTM = 15.026 kg-m/s

NRTM = 2.504 kg-m/s

net momentum = 17.530 kg-m/s

RTM KE = 11.289 J

NRTM KE = 3.136

net KE = 14.425 J

Time = 401.375 s

-------------------------


5 m:

frame = 4011

RTM = 16.457 kg-m/s

NRTM = 3.292 kg-m/s

net momentum = 19.749 kg-m/s

RTM KE = 13.541 J

NRTM KE = 5.417 J

net KE = 18.958 J

Time = 501.375 s

------------------------


So from 6 m down to 5 m radius, we spent 4.533 J for a total momentum rise of 2.219 kg-m/s, an avg. of 2.042 J per kg-m/s


-------------------------



Now, the final meter, from 1.014 m down to 0.014 m:


1.014 m:

frame = 7200

RTM = 10.592 kg-m/s

NRTM = 10.445 kg-m/s

net momentum = 21.037

RTM KE = 5.609

NRTM KE = 54.551

net KE = 60.161 J

time = 900 s


-------------------------


0.014 m:

frame = 8000

RTM = 0.190 kg-m/s

NRTM = 11.519 kg-m/s

net momentum = 11.709 kg-m/s

RTM KE = 0.002 J

NRTM KE = 66.343 J

net KE = 66.345 J

Time = 1000

---------------------------

So net momentum fell by 9.328 kg-m/s, for a KE rise of 6.184 J, an avg. of 0.662 J per negative kg-m/s.

So, umm... is this reversible? Ie. if it's eating momentum, at cost, when pulling the mass inwards, does it spew free momentum and energy when chucking it back out?


Since momentum has gone down, while KE has gone up, the energy value of that remaining momentum appears to have inflated? IE. at 5 m radius our momentum value was 0.822 J per kg-m/s, while at 14 mm radius it's now worth 5.666 J / kg-m/s..

Interesting stuff, what what? My prior mental model of this ostensibly-simple interaction was woefully incomplete. I mean the general picture wasn't wrong - but the subtleties of the feedbacks and inter-reactions when the system is simplified to just two point masses is surprising.. It's going to be interesting to see what happens when the interaction's reversed, slowly winding the mass back out. If there's any kind of exploit here then it really is hidden in plain sight..

The reason why i'm keeping the translation slow is to keep the meters unadulterated by that linear motion - so for example the KE or momentum change at any given moment is, to all practical intents and purposes, purely angular, since the linear magnitudes are so small. Whereas, if we move the mass in or out too quickly, then we're reading that linear momentum and KE along with the angular values, all mixed together.. and it's only the angular values that i'm querying.

The issue of 'where the momentum goes' is obviously not a question, here - it plainly disappears into nothingness at the center because its velocity does. However the potential implications of that non-constancy are very much a focus. Again, the cause seems trivial enough, but at the same time, a non-constant closed system momentum is not so trivial, especially if we're looking precisely for this kind of apparent symmetry break... despite its clear causal consistency, might it nonetheless suffice for an 'effective' symmetry break - such as an effective N3 violation in spite of mass constancy, type deal?

There's a nice degree of plausibility to an exploit which doesn't itself 'strictly' break symmetry, yet which nonetheless comes close enough to facilitate further felonies.. breaking physics without breaking physics, but then breaking it anyway, for real..

Time to hedge your bets whether or not this dynamic's reversible - will the system momentum spontaneously double when we topple the static mass back out of the center? And if it does... is there any way we could manipulate this gainfully?
MrVibrating
Addict
Addict
Posts: 2875
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2010 12:19 am
Location: W3

Post by MrVibrating »

Note that we can cross-reference the energy values we're paying or receiving for momentum, against their corresponding speed values, by applying KE=1/2mV^2 and P=mV - so for example the 2.042 J per kg-m/s rate from 6 down to 5 meters radius corresponds to a 1 kg velocity of 2.02 meters / sec., or 1.42 m/s for a 2 kg mass etc.

Any variation from the usual half-square accumulator is a potential win.. ie. if we can buy successive units of momentum without their cost spiraling up with rising velocity, then we're in OU territory... a la effective N3 break.

So, in principle, if we could buy cheaper momentum the faster we go then.. bingo? IE. if the cost of momentum is not only a function of velocity, but also some other, potentially-offsetting, factor?

Again, the base value of momentum is 1/2 Joule per kg-m/s, but even if we can only reduce the value at a much higher magnitudes - say 20 J / kg-m/s, or worse.. so long as it's sustainable to some degree over successive cycles, OU remains firmly on the table... kinda like how Deloreans can only time travel at 88 MPH, type stuff... we'd have a higher-speed or higher mass or radius 'sweet spot' where we were able to maintain stable momentum costs despite further rising velocity, and that's where our gain margins would start to kick in...
MrVibrating
Addict
Addict
Posts: 2875
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2010 12:19 am
Location: W3

re: Into the Vanishing Point..

Post by MrVibrating »

Before i make a start on the reverse tests (letting the sliding mass slowly fall outwards), it's probably worthwhile taking a quick look at the inverse of the previous test - this time, pulling 1 kg inwards, while leaving 10 kg out at the perimeter.


Quick recap of what i'm doing here: swinging a massless pole round in circles, without gravity or losses enabled, and with a pair of masses attached to the outer end, one of which gets slowly pulled inward, while leaving the other one at fixed radius.

The purpose is to examine how momentum and KE evolve, depending on the relative values of these two masses.

The system is intended to be a simplification of what happens when a mass slides in and out on a wheel, but here, the 'wheel' has been reduced to a point-mass, like the sliding mass.

So in a nutshell, i'm looking at the changing distributions of momentum and KE, and the nature of their inter-reactions, between a radially-translating mass, and any other, non-radially translating mass, in a passive rotating system - or at least with absolute minimal further input energy - hence the distributions are apportioned entirely naturally by the normal emergent factors mediating conservation of angular momentum.

So, swing mass around in circles, while pulling some of it inwards, or else, letting some of it outwards, and while monitoring their momentum and KE! That's the basic gig, for now..

And so below is a demonstration of what happens when 1 kg is pulled inwards across a 10 meter radius, orbiting an axis at an initial 1 RPM speed, while a second, 10 kg mass, remains fixed at 10 meters radius:

Image


...so in contrast to the previous, inverse test, in this result we see that the 1 kg mass sliding inwards is undergoing a fairly constant rate of deceleration, all the way in.

Remembering that we also have the other, 10 kg mass still out at 10 meters fixed radius, this result is still nonetheless a curious one:

- firstly of course, it's the exact opposite behaviour most folks, i'd dare say, would expect. I certainly wouldn't have predicted this outcome. Pulling mass inwards causes it to accelerate! Everyone knows this!? As its radius shrinks, so does its moment of inertia, and since angular momentum is RPM * MoI, a casual application of conservation of momentum would suggest that if MoI goes down, RPM must rise to compensate that drop, and so maintain constant momentum.

Yet this is the opposite of what we're seeing. The deceleration isn't some blip - it's decelerating at constant rate, all the way in, from the first moment to the last!

Sure, we're supplying an absolute minimum of PE in order to pull the 1 kg inwards against centrifugal force, but we're also keeping the RPM low, so that, as you can see, the forces and energies, are also kept low. Besides which, i would've expected any interference from further input energy to simply boost the speed, making the angular acceleration even higher..

Suffice to say that we'll eliminate any such interference when reversing these tests and letting the mass be pulled outwards 100% passively, by centrifugal force.

So, if reversing the direction of the interaction also neatly flips the sign of this deceleration, then that'll be an interesting result... causing a mass to speed up by letting it outwards and raising MoI! If it works we'll have a symmetrically topsy-turvy inertial interaction - speeding up when we should be slowing down, and vice versa!

I'll run the numbers on it as before, tomorrow probably as i got in late tonight - at first glance it doesn't look as challenging as the previous result, wherein momentum lost on one mass seemed to be independent of gains on the other - here, instead, we see a total loss of about 1 kg-m/s on the left, and about the same rise on the right - and similarly, the unit energy value of momentum looks to be pretty constant - i'll sample from 6-5 meters radius, and again from 1 meter down to zero, as before, to see if there's any variation, but if so it's presumably going to be 1/10th that of the previous test.

Again, the reason why the previous test was anticipated to produce such a result is that the 10 kg mass being pulled into the center represents most of the system momentum and energy, and so when it 'vanishes' into the center where orbital momentum and KE no longer apply, this is bound to have a pronounced effect upon the net balances.. so if there's a similar effect here in this example, it's likely to be 10x weaker..

So, nothing particularly useful here yet, some intriguing results from an extremely basic interaction, confounding certain easy assumptions about just how CoAM applies, next i'll take a closer look at the figures from this last result... and then try reversing the 10:1 test, to see what happens as the larger mass launches out into orbit from the center...
Attachments
pullitin2.3.wm2d
(31.15 KiB) Downloaded 100 times
Last edited by MrVibrating on Fri Feb 17, 2017 3:28 am, edited 2 times in total.
MrVibrating
Addict
Addict
Posts: 2875
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2010 12:19 am
Location: W3

Post by MrVibrating »

..only just thought to add an RPM meter, so i've updated the above test but it's too late to edit the previous one... it accelerated up to 11 RPM however.

So there's a nice smart symmetry - the system gains precisely the same ratio of RPM's as the ratio of translating to non-translating mass..

So when we haul in 10 kg by 10 meters radius while keeping 1 kg at 10 m fixed radius, we gain 10 RPM, and when we haul in 1 kg with 10 kg fixed, we gain .10 RPM..

A variable-MoI flywheel as demonstrated in my previous thread could be applied here to hold or otherwise modify the RPM change, but that's for later - after reversing these tests i'll try converting CF PE into sprung PE to see how this affects the momentum / KE distributions - so as the mass is pulled outwards it loads a spring, restricting radius and thus momentum and KE..

..and then, after springs, gravity...
MrVibrating
Addict
Addict
Posts: 2875
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2010 12:19 am
Location: W3

Post by MrVibrating »

..just to underline the incongruity again, the actual intrinsic velocity of an orbiting mass being pulled inwards can be caused to decelerate, in a controlled manner, despite the system RPM's consistently accelerating..

Again, the reason for this, unless i'm mistaken, is that circumferential distance decreases with radius, hence even though the orbital velocity is rising, the amount of actual space the mass is traveling and accelerating through is being constantly reduced, in ever-decreasing circles, and so offsetting the intrinsic velocity rise associated with the rising RPM's. By the time it reaches the exact center, it's traveling through no space at all, and stationary relative to the outer fixed mass - no matter how high the RPMs - as well as relative to earth and gravity..

Makes you wonder if we might perhaps somehow play RPM's against intrinsic velocity. Similarly, maybe there's something we could do to the mass in terms of changing some aspect of its profile, or perhaps some other system detail, while it's stationary in the center.. for instance, suppose the mass travels diametrically across the wheel, from rim to rim, passing through the center - what if we could do something to it in the middle that changed the outcome of the P / KE distributions as it came back out the other side of the axle?

Bessler's "gravitating to the center and climbing back up" and "so long as they remain outside the center of gravity" clues could have relevance here..
User avatar
Gregory
Aficionado
Aficionado
Posts: 566
Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2006 10:33 pm
Location: Europe

re: Into the Vanishing Point..

Post by Gregory »

Hey MrV,

I had an idea about your flywheel getting fatter instead of faster.

Consider the following scenario:

We have flywheel1 and flywheel2, both are the spring tensioned governor type.
We also have your classic robonoster system.
The system and the two flywheels set into motion by a push.

1: FW1 is connected to the robonoster system and in compensating mode, ready to "absorb acceleration". FW2 pulls in the swinging mass at high CF.

2: FW1 absorbs the acceleration in the form of increased MoI, then disengages from the robonoster system while FW2 engages, aka they swap roles.

3: Now, FW2 is connected to the robonoster system in compensating mode, and FW2 pulls in the next mass at peak CF.

4: They continue the process the same way swapping roles each time after a mass was pulled in.


I assume this will be a zero-sum game, but you might be interested to try. The compensating FW will always be accelerated a tiny bit, and the mass puller FW will always be slowed a tiny bit. The whole system momentum will be conserved, I think.

But who knows, this may give you some new ideas.

Another idea is to integrate the flywheel/compensating mass on the poles, so to have a combined "rider". The expanded spring in the no CF zone might be used to partially pull in the next mass at high CF. Still can't see how that will solve the problem, but it may lead you to something new.

Edit: I haven't mentioned the linear ratchet and stuff, on the pic, but you will get it I am sure.
Attachments
Pic005.jpg
MrVibrating
Addict
Addict
Posts: 2875
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2010 12:19 am
Location: W3

re: Into the Vanishing Point..

Post by MrVibrating »

Ok so now i'm going to look at the momentum cost of the last interaction, as before.

This time i'll take three samples for more thoroughness, one at the beginning, one in the middle and another at the end, like this:

Image


...so i'll note the change in system momentum and KE across the first meter of radial translation, from 10 meters down to 9 meters, and then again for 5.5 m down to 4.5 m, and then the final meter into the center (or as close as we can get before the sim runs out of significant digits, due to the infinities & infinitesimals this 'vanishing point' causes).



So without further ceremony:

- at frame 1, 10 meters radius, 1 RPM, in the first millisecond, we have 1.047 kg-m/s on the 1 kg radially translating mass, and 10.472 kg-m/s on the 10 kg non-radially translating mass.

Total starting angular momentum is therefore 11.519 kg-m/s.

The starting system KE of this net momentum is 6.031 Joules.


- at 9 m, frame 811, RTM = 0.959 kg-m/s, NRTMM = 10.656 kg-m/s, so 11.615 kg-m/s total momentum, at 6.138 J net sys KE.



So in the first meter, net momentum has been increased by 0.096 kg-m/s, for an input energy rise of 0.107 J, an exchange rate of 1.114 J per kg-m/s.


Now again at the middle, from 5.5 to 4.5 m radius:

- 5.5 m, frame 3611, RTM 0.615 + NRTM 11.181 = 11.796 kg-m/s @ 6.440 J net KE

- 4.5 m, frame 4411, RTM .508, NRTM 11.291, so 11.799 kg-m/s @ 6.503 J

Momentum has risen by 0.003 kg-m/s and KE by 0.063 J, an exchange rate of 21 j / kg-m/s.


And for the final meter:

-
1,013 m, frame 7200, RTM 0.117, NRTM 11.507, total 11.624 kg-m/s, KE 6.628 J

- 0.013 m, frame 8000, RTM 0.010, NRTM 11.519, total 11.529 kg-m/s, KE 6.635

Momentum's down -0.095 kg-m/s, while KE's up by 0.007 J, a rate of 0.07 J per negative kg-m/s.


So in summary momentum's 1.1 J per kg-m/s at 10 to 9 meters, 21 J / kg-m/s at 5.5 to 4.5 m, and 0.07 J / -1 kg-m/s the final meter in. From cheap, to expensive, to negative.


These are the going energy rates for momentum, in the input direction, from within the inertial frame.


Comparisons with the output direction will follow..
MrVibrating
Addict
Addict
Posts: 2875
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2010 12:19 am
Location: W3

Re: re: Into the Vanishing Point..

Post by MrVibrating »

Gregory wrote:Hey MrV,

I had an idea about your flywheel getting fatter instead of faster.

Consider the following scenario:

We have flywheel1 and flywheel2, both are the spring tensioned governor type.
We also have your classic robonoster system.
The system and the two flywheels set into motion by a push.

1: FW1 is connected to the robonoster system and in compensating mode, ready to "absorb acceleration". FW2 pulls in the swinging mass at high CF.

2: FW1 absorbs the acceleration in the form of increased MoI, then disengages from the robonoster system while FW2 engages, aka they swap roles.

3: Now, FW2 is connected to the robonoster system in compensating mode, and FW2 pulls in the next mass at peak CF.

4: They continue the process the same way swapping roles each time after a mass was pulled in.


I assume this will be a zero-sum game, but you might be interested to try. The compensating FW will always be accelerated a tiny bit, and the mass puller FW will always be slowed a tiny bit. The whole system momentum will be conserved, I think.

But who knows, this may give you some new ideas.

Another idea is to integrate the flywheel/compensating mass on the poles, so to have a combined "rider". The expanded spring in the no CF zone might be used to partially pull in the next mass at high CF. Still can't see how that will solve the problem, but it may lead you to something new.

Edit: I haven't mentioned the linear ratchet and stuff, on the pic, but you will get it I am sure.
Sorry i didn't reply this afternoon, was doing other stuff over the w/e and had to scoot off to work earlier..

Wow, tho - i'm just honored anyone's followed that far already! The robernoster concept unfortunately can't work the way i originally envisaged, as it depends upon a non-constant system momentum.

The variable-MoI flywheel however might yet have application, however before proceeding further with it, i'm just coming to terms with the fact that for the past few years i've been yanking masses in and out while only looking at net PE's, and in the process riding roughshod over these fascinating fine details that i'd never noticed before. So while the robernoster has constant momentum, at least as i've tried to apply it so far, the current work seems to suggest that we might be able to take control of a non-constant net momentum using little more than simple rotation.

I have no solid ideas how to proceed just yet, but lots of ideas about the data i need to collect and analyse, with a focus on manipulating the energy cost of momentum, and implementing an effective N3 violation. It's just a matter of plodding through it all.

So i'll be doing versions of these tests while using springs, per the variable-MoI concept, but exploring it in much closer detail.

I intend to then do the same thing with gravitational interactions.

Obviously, all the evidence suggests Bessler employed all these elements, regardless of whether his exploit was based around momentum control or not, so mapping out these interactions seems prudent - even if the current hypotheses turns out to be futile, this stuff could be handy for future reference.


So while i don't currently have a solid idea on what exploit to try for, an obvious one would be making reaction momentum disappear, to effect an asymmetry. Dunno if it could work, just throwing it out there for later...

Another, though, would be trading energy for momentum when the conversion rates are passively variable, buying low and selling high. In the current tests we see very significant variation in net system momentum just from very-slowly inching a mass in towards the center. However this variation in the KE / momentum exchange rate is highly specific to its given conditions of RPM and radial excursion etc., and so if we're only able to buy or sell disproportionate amounts of momentum, then regardless of the variations in exchange rate, unity will be enforced in the quantities we're able to trade.

And so this might be another area where speed control via sprung-MoI might be useful .

I think there's a very good chance that a winning system will look much as you envisage - two or three inter-connected systems all trading momentum as a varying function of KE / PE, but it also seems likely that gravitational interactions will prove a necessary component of that system.

Obviously, as i can see no mathematical possibility of GPE value varying in a similar manner, the only remaining variable in a GPE interaction is momentum - the slower a mass falls, the less momentum it has, and so presumably the more something else has, usually a rotor. But this dynamic applies equally when lifting - so while speed of lifting and dropping has no immediate effect on the energy profile, it may be another useful dynamic in some kind of momentum-control scheme..

Suffice to say this is all incredibly speculative and abstract, and i'm very much feeling my way around, tapping at the walls to listen for hollows.. trying to put together some kind of box of general-purpose tools for manipulating and controlling the energy values of inertia and momentum..

(All on-point contributions are most welcome of course..)
Post Reply