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
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 »

..basically, by switching our 'inertia' terms between that of rest mass for linear and MoI for angular, we're not just switching momentum terms but also energy terms.

After the first input stroke on the right hand side, we leave that corner with a raised V and if we don't extend on the straight, we enter the left hand corner with the same amount of momentum and KE we had upon leaving the right hand corner..

..but if we do extend on the straight, then we enter the left side corner with more angular momentum and RKE than we had upon leaving the right hand corner.

So we're 'creating' angular momentum and RKE merely by extending on the straight - without applying torque, or, thus, counter torque! We just 'magic' it from nowhere by flipping the 'inertia' component of both fields, from rest mass, to MoI.

This seems really exciting..
Yes, raised V is neccessary, still angular momentum and RKE only increase at re-extending, because of the increasing MoI term which is subject to R^2 multiplicator. And right, without applying any torque from the outside, that's the real importance of it. "The wheel's own inner force must come into being, without external momentum being applied"

Another interesting point...
If we consider the inertial brake which has the capacity to continuously slow down anything attached to it by periodically performing the "extending to infinite radius" trick... Then where the momentum goes? It's lost to... To basically nowhere. It's simply lost via inertial interactions. A hardcore physicist would possibly theorize Higgs-field or space-time, etc. But the real interesting point: If somebody manage to reverse this process by a "retracting through an infinite radius" trick, then it would mean that momentum simply comes into being, essentially from nowhere. That would be extraordinary... I am also thinking about this for several years by now.
As for gravity, i've considered your suggestion already, but haven't (yet) found a promising trajectory that can be constrained to the Robernoster itself - if we retract at 12 o' clock, we'd need to extend again before entering the corner. Entering the corner at full extension seems to be a necessary condition.
Is it not possible to design the straight line path to be vertical (in gravity field) or tangential to slightly below 3 o'clock? Just an idea.
The only reason i gave up on such designs was their computational complexity in terms of simulation - the key problem the Robernoster was intended to solve, insofar as involving no collisions or friction. One full cycle of a simulated paternoster can take many hours to complete, if at all, half the time bugging out due to collision errors, either spontaneously exploding, or else the belt / chain falling through the wheels / sprockets. Just try making a sprocket and chain assembly and you'll see what i mean..
Yeah, I know how much a pain that can be! :D
I have a simple pulley simulation with formulas in all the main orientations. I attach it for you, perhaps it can help at something... It can be also put into a rotational frame, pulleys riding a main wheel. In that case the formulas need to be corrected with the main wheels rotation, but it's possible. There are formulas for the connecting points to the pulley and for the rods/ropes too. You can also use rigid changing length rods on this type of pulley. It's not always easy to mess around with these, but check it out if you like.
Attachments
Pulley_Sim_AllOrientation_1a.wm2d
(1.16 MiB) Downloaded 78 times
MrVibrating
Addict
Addict
Posts: 2875
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2010 12:19 am
Location: W3

re: Into the Vanishing Point..

Post by MrVibrating »

Yes, raised V is neccessary, still angular momentum and RKE only increase at re-extending, because of the increasing MoI term which is subject to R^2 multiplicator. And right, without applying any torque from the outside, that's the real importance of it. "The wheel's own inner force must come into being, without external momentum being applied"
Precisely! And this is why Bessler insisted that "in a true PMM, everything must, of necessity, go around together - there can be nothing involved in it which remains staionary upon the axle" - this is why his wheels were statorless; the exploit is an effective violation of Newton's 3rd!

"it must simply rotate.."

Regarding the necessity of raised V, and the fact that this is not free; remember that however much energy we spend on this acceleration, the RKE we gain upon freely extending the MoI is additional to that value...

..but moreover, the two energies are decoupled - we could extend much further than we pulled the mass in, so the ratio of V to MoI is arbitrary, for example:

Image

..we could input a small amount of V on the right, followed by a much larger amount of MoI on the left...

The key exploit is being able to freely open up the radius without decelerating.

Another interesting point...
If we consider the inertial brake which has the capacity to continuously slow down anything attached to it by periodically performing the "extending to infinite radius" trick... Then where the momentum goes? It's lost to... To basically nowhere. It's simply lost via inertial interactions. A hardcore physicist would possibly theorize Higgs-field or space-time, etc. But the real interesting point: If somebody manage to reverse this process by a "retracting through an infinite radius" trick, then it would mean that momentum simply comes into being, essentially from nowhere. That would be extraordinary... I am also thinking about this for several years by now.
Yes! Of course, extending to infinite radius preserves angular momentum, but while linear momentum becomes infinitesimal.

However creation and destruction of momentum this way is already a fait acompli, as demonstrated by the earlier experiments in this thread - if we pull an orbiting mass - which is not rotating about its own axis, ie. on a free bearing - into the exact center, then linear momentum (rest mass times V) increases (potentially by a very large amount), before disappearing entirely at the center - all without inducing counter-torque; applying radial (CP) force only.

This costs quite a lot of energy of course, but then CoM is not supposed to be energy-dependent!

So yes, this is very challenging to the standard model, at the most fundamental level!

But now we've taken it that step further, and energy, too, is no longer conserved..

On this count, we find ourselves in a quandary - energy and momentum are being created and destroyed, ex nihilo, by the very laws of CoAM themselves...

...as such, we cannot accept the 'ex nihilo' appearance, and must instead conclude that both fields remain conserved... ie. this is vacuum energy, and, as you note, the momentum is being sourced and sunk to and from the vacuum / Higgs field.

This poses further very pressing questions - not least regarding safety: we must assume that the local vacuum potential is being converted to mechanical / thermodynamic energy, and that this deficit represents a further 'vacuum' within the vacuum potential.

Nature abhors a vacuum of course, so this deficit radiates outwards at C in all directions, and some kind of motion towards equalisation must restore equilibrium; my fear is that the local value of mass (ie. the strength of the Higgs interaction itself) may be attenuated. This would effectively mean that everything else in the sky becomes heavier than us, here in our expanding reduced-mass bubble.

But rather than "the sky falling in", the more likely fallout would be from the bottom up - matter could begin to dissociate at the quantum realm. The "island of stability" may begin to drift. The EM constant, alpha (AKA the fine structure constant) is also likely a function of the vacuum potential.

Even if we cannot develop these principles into an inertial motor (reactionless thrust), we still have 'infinite energy', so could scoop tenuous dust and gas from the deep space medium, energise it and use it as reaction matter per ion engines, and so keep accelerating across interstellar space, so the prospect we face is a potential pan-galactic civilisation powered by vacuum energy, all the while thinking it's "free", when nothing could be further from the truth.. Any deviation in the local value of mass could destroy the universe as we know it!

A similar possibility is outlined in the article below:

https://phys.org/news/2013-12-collapse- ... loser.html

We know that momentum and energy are conserved, and this exploit, if real, depends upon these facts holding true. It would be the last word in 'irony' if thought we were saving the world when we were actually destroying the cosmos as we know it - and further, this fact may offer an anthropocentric parameter to the Drake equation, as well as answering the Fermi paradox (ie. maybe the only reason we're here is because no one else anywhere has discovered "OU" yet)..

Fuckit tho, i wanna see a spinny thing.. (and a Nobel on me bookshelf)..
Is it not possible to design the straight line path to be vertical (in gravity field) or tangential to slightly below 3 o'clock? Just an idea.
Is it? Will have to think it over...
Yeah, I know how much a pain that can be! :D
I have a simple pulley simulation with formulas in all the main orientations. I attach it for you, perhaps it can help at something... It can be also put into a rotational frame, pulleys riding a main wheel. In that case the formulas need to be corrected with the main wheels rotation, but it's possible. There are formulas for the connecting points to the pulley and for the rods/ropes too. You can also use rigid changing length rods on this type of pulley. It's not always easy to mess around with these, but check it out if you like.
Brilliant, thanks for this, i expect this could really come in handy..

(i'm still a little sceptical about using my own formulas, and inadvertently overriding the chacks and balances built into the sim software, since this could easily stray into running an invalid 'sim within a sim', however in this case it seems perfectly watertight..)
Attachments
Big_I_small_V.jpg
Last edited by MrVibrating on Tue Apr 18, 2017 7:49 pm, edited 2 times in total.
MrVibrating
Addict
Addict
Posts: 2875
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2010 12:19 am
Location: W3

Post by MrVibrating »

...just in case it wasn't obvious already, the initial "pullitin" experiments in this thread are fully reversible (tried and tested already) - so we can already generate "momentum from nowhere" by simply extending a non-rotating mass outwards from the exact orbital center - the momentum as a function of rest mass times velocity follows precisely the same curve whether the mass is pulled in or pushed out.. so we already have this result in the bag..

Again, angular momentum (MoI times RPM) remains conserved throughout, but linear momentum (rest mass * X + Y velocity) increases from nowhere, and likewise disappears to nowhere - all without inducing counter-momenta. If we collide the orbiting mass at any point with another mass, while it is still anchored to the orbital axis, then the net momentum remains bound to MoI, and we get no variation. If however the anchor is released immediately prior to the collision - or else, if we just let the mass fly off in a straight line - then the inertia terms are switched, and the implied linear momentum becomes actual and manifest - generating momentum from nowhere is trivially easy!
MrVibrating
Addict
Addict
Posts: 2875
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2010 12:19 am
Location: W3

Post by MrVibrating »

@Greg - I think i see what you mean now about turning the config 90° to vertical - pull it in coming around the top, extend again coming down the side, stay at full extension coming around the bottom and up the other side, then repeat.. or something like this..

TBH i was just thinking about doing it horizontally, with the config face-up, eliminating gravity from this part of the mechanism and having the GPE on a separate mechanism, but if your way works it may be easier.. will think it over some more.
MrVibrating
Addict
Addict
Posts: 2875
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2010 12:19 am
Location: W3

re: Into the Vanishing Point..

Post by MrVibrating »

...so something like this then:

Image


...since the gain is angular not linear, this just shows the approximate trajectory - to actually harness the angular component, it looks like some kind of wheel is needed - suppose the armature extends into the center, it could maybe mesh with a wheel at the bottom center of the track, so we can actually tap off that increased torque from the raised MoI..

..presumably then we'd also need an upper wheel, driven by the lower one, to pull the armature up and around...

..the upwards vs downwards GPE's would need to be as equal as possible, so that the only advantage we want from gravity is in pulling the mass inwards around the top..?

Starting to wonder if a real-world build might be in order, using wheels and a belt or chain to mount the armature to..
Attachments
vertical_RN.jpg
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 »

..but moreover, the two energies are decoupled - we could extend much further than we pulled the mass in, so the ratio of V to MoI is arbitrary...
This is a great insight, but after some time and several cycles you would need longer and longer radius to continue to do that uneven sequence. Always extending more than pulling in leads to an infinite radius over time, which is not so practical. Otherwise nice idea, it offers space for variations, like a "variable valve timing"...
We know that momentum and energy are conserved, and this exploit, if real, depends upon these facts holding true. It would be the last word in 'irony' if thought we were saving the world when we were actually destroying the cosmos as we know it - and further, this fact may offer an anthropocentric parameter to the Drake equation, as well as answering the Fermi paradox (ie. maybe the only reason we're here is because no one else anywhere has discovered "OU" yet)..
Good train of thoughts and it's important to consider and think about the implications. But I laughed out loud at your last sentence, sure this is an exotic solution... :D
Fuckit tho, i wanna see a spinny thing.. (and a Nobel on me bookshelf)..
Me too!
...just in case it wasn't obvious already, the initial "pullitin" experiments in this thread are fully reversible (tried and tested already) - so we can already generate "momentum from nowhere" by simply extending a non-rotating mass outwards from the exact orbital center - the momentum as a function of rest mass times velocity follows precisely the same curve whether the mass is pulled in or pushed out.. so we already have this result in the bag..
I know it is perfectly reversible. The reason I add the "would be" diminutive to some of my statements is because I am trying to view the whole from a very rigorous/scientific perspective. Whereas the inertial brake could most probably work right now when built, the opposite is not yet true, because that involves sourcing energy from somewhere to force the mass closer to the axle in the first place. Without that all what is accomplished is only a nice conjuring trick from my point of view. It doesn't make it less of an achievement though... And this why I tried to suggest the vertical track. Perhaps our grumpy old friend gravity can move its fat ass now and help just a little bit.
Also interesting to notice that while all the mad gravity cultists try to lift weight by gravity, we here on the contrary try to ask our old friend to do what he is usually good at: Pulling a mass downwards.
@Greg - I think i see what you mean now about turning the config 90° to vertical - pull it in coming around the top, extend again coming down the side, stay at full extension coming around the bottom and up the other side, then repeat.. or something like this..

TBH i was just thinking about doing it horizontally, with the config face-up, eliminating gravity from this part of the mechanism and having the GPE on a separate mechanism, but if your way works it may be easier.. will think it over some more.
Exactly, pull in at the top by gravity, extend on the vertical straight, come around back to top without doing anything, then repeat. (A spring might be handy) That was the idea.
..the upwards vs downwards GPE's would need to be as equal as possible, so that the only advantage we want from gravity is in pulling the mass inwards around the top..?
Nice drawing. Yes, the only thing we want form gravity to pull in the mass at the top, and that's all, nothing else. But he is usually good at this... Let's see whether it offers any help. And right, we would need the GPE on the two sides to be as much equal as possible. This might be a somewhat problematic part, but hopefully the increased V of the pull-in process will cover for any losses.

Look at the whole process just like as a normal pendulum starts from 12 o'clock, it swings back almost the same height, ideally. Simple zero sum game. You need exactly the same, except try to combine it with the "retracting through an infinite radius" trick, assisted by Mr G.
I think it is best to first try with a small mass, like 0.1 - 0.5 kg and a 1 - 5 N starting push, optimize for low speed, CF is your enemy in this configuration. Not sure how it will work out. But it will definitely show whether gravity can offer any help.
User avatar
agor95
Addict
Addict
Posts: 7456
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 8:09 pm
Location: Earth Orbit
Contact:

re: Into the Vanishing Point..

Post by agor95 »

Nice concepts

I trust it is running anti-clockwise and there is a spring pulling it together.

Regards
[MP] Mobiles that perpetuate - external energy allowed
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:
..but moreover, the two energies are decoupled - we could extend much further than we pulled the mass in, so the ratio of V to MoI is arbitrary...
This is a great insight, but after some time and several cycles you would need longer and longer radius to continue to do that uneven sequence. Always extending more than pulling in leads to an infinite radius over time, which is not so practical. Otherwise nice idea, it offers space for variations, like a "variable valve timing"...
..i left the loop open because i was just thinking about a single cycle proof-of-principle, a bit like Steorn's K-toy demo - start with a small drop, end with a big lift. Although given the reception they got with that, i doubt that would swing much opinion..
We know that momentum and energy are conserved, and this exploit, if real, depends upon these facts holding true. It would be the last word in 'irony' if thought we were saving the world when we were actually destroying the cosmos as we know it - and further, this fact may offer an anthropocentric parameter to the Drake equation, as well as answering the Fermi paradox (ie. maybe the only reason we're here is because no one else anywhere has discovered "OU" yet)..
Good train of thoughts and it's important to consider and think about the implications. But I laughed out loud at your last sentence, sure this is an exotic solution... :D
I doubt there'll be any detectable environmental effects - no particle emission, charge accumulations or anything, so it will seem like a true silver bullet.. which potentially just makes it all the more risky. If successful, we'll be the only game in town - all other energy techs will become obsolete overnight, so we're talking about a global-scale economic boom, terrawatts / hr within no time.. hopefully there is no sting in the tail, but the more it seems too good to be true.. If successful, i intend to keep pressing for caution!
Fuckit tho, i wanna see a spinny thing.. (and a Nobel on me bookshelf)..
Me too!
...just in case it wasn't obvious already, the initial "pullitin" experiments in this thread are fully reversible (tried and tested already) - so we can already generate "momentum from nowhere" by simply extending a non-rotating mass outwards from the exact orbital center - the momentum as a function of rest mass times velocity follows precisely the same curve whether the mass is pulled in or pushed out.. so we already have this result in the bag..
I know it is perfectly reversible. The reason I add the "would be" diminutive to some of my statements is because I am trying to view the whole from a very rigorous/scientific perspective. Whereas the inertial brake could most probably work right now when built, the opposite is not yet true, because that involves sourcing energy from somewhere to force the mass closer to the axle in the first place. Without that all what is accomplished is only a nice conjuring trick from my point of view. It doesn't make it less of an achievement though... And this why I tried to suggest the vertical track. Perhaps our grumpy old friend gravity can move its fat ass now and help just a little bit.
Also interesting to notice that while all the mad gravity cultists try to lift weight by gravity, we here on the contrary try to ask our old friend to do what he is usually good at: Pulling a mass downwards.
The proof of course is in the pudding, however by my reckoning we're already OU in principle, since the gain in RKE from freely increased MoI is over and above whatever the cost of pulling the mass in - ie. suppose it costs 1 J to retract, so we've paid for 1 J of raised KE, but as you note MoI = M*R^2, so we could extend to practically any radius, for free, and so gain 2 J or 20..

..for now it's just maths. But compelling nonetheless - it's basic stuff. Elemental, even.. and if we do indeed have a non-dissipative loss mechanism already, then a gain is just the same interaction, time-reversed..

We're in full agreement over the mad cultists tho! To my thinking, the constancy of mass and gravity is all there is to say on the issue..
@Greg - I think i see what you mean now about turning the config 90° to vertical - pull it in coming around the top, extend again coming down the side, stay at full extension coming around the bottom and up the other side, then repeat.. or something like this..

TBH i was just thinking about doing it horizontally, with the config face-up, eliminating gravity from this part of the mechanism and having the GPE on a separate mechanism, but if your way works it may be easier.. will think it over some more.
Exactly, pull in at the top by gravity, extend on the vertical straight, come around back to top without doing anything, then repeat. (A spring might be handy) That was the idea.
Of course really, gravity has absolutely nothing at all to do with any of this, besides consistency with the Bessler tradition - springs could replace G entirely..
..the upwards vs downwards GPE's would need to be as equal as possible, so that the only advantage we want from gravity is in pulling the mass inwards around the top..?
Nice drawing. Yes, the only thing we want form gravity to pull in the mass at the top, and that's all, nothing else. But he is usually good at this... Let's see whether it offers any help. And right, we would need the GPE on the two sides to be as much equal as possible. This might be a somewhat problematic part, but hopefully the increased V of the pull-in process will cover for any losses.
The increased MoI component of the RKE could dwarf the the V component. It looks to me like our gains could be almost arbitrary..
Look at the whole process just like as a normal pendulum starts from 12 o'clock, it swings back almost the same height, ideally. Simple zero sum game. You need exactly the same, except try to combine it with the "retracting through an infinite radius" trick, assisted by Mr G.
I think it is best to first try with a small mass, like 0.1 - 0.5 kg and a 1 - 5 N starting push, optimize for low speed, CF is your enemy in this configuration. Not sure how it will work out. But it will definitely show whether gravity can offer any help.
I increasingly suspect the involvement of gravity was purely aesthetic from Bessler's point of view - he'd set his mind to simulating an effective gravity wheel - perhaps as much to confound the skeptics, as well as misleading would-be replicators.

Still, if he could do it, so can we... and it certainly looks like we're almost there..
MrVibrating
Addict
Addict
Posts: 2875
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2010 12:19 am
Location: W3

re: Into the Vanishing Point..

Post by MrVibrating »

deleted
Last edited by MrVibrating on Fri Apr 21, 2017 12:22 am, edited 1 time in total.
MrVibrating
Addict
Addict
Posts: 2875
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2010 12:19 am
Location: W3

Re: re: Into the Vanishing Point..

Post by MrVibrating »

deleted
Last edited by MrVibrating on Fri Apr 21, 2017 12:21 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
preoccupied
Devotee
Devotee
Posts: 1893
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2011 3:28 am
Location: Michigan

re: Into the Vanishing Point..

Post by preoccupied »

In your post "Posted: Sun Apr 16, 2017 7:25 pm Post subject: re: Into the Vanishing Point.." on page 5 you said that your animation wouldn't work because it's not an open ended cycle. I don't know what that is but what I see is that your green cross shaped levers are driving the wheel and that it's driving it separate from the weights that will be pushed up and down the ramp section of your blue lines. I don't know specifically how to calculate it in Physics 101 but I think that's where you need to look because the green levers driving things up the ramp like that should have too much resistance because it's driving a vertical lever that is then pushing a weight up and down a ramp. That ramp is not balanced, I think you should consider this, because just because there is an equal weight going up the ramp as going down another ramp you've created a conflict with your driving green levers that is extremely severe by making a lever situation that will cause a lot of resistance before you accomplish anything. Another thing is that the blue lines that are driving the green levers on the far left and right are not. They also have a lever conflict that is not pushing as much on the green lever as you think because they are on a ramp so the far right in the animation is pushing very little down in the green lever and on the far left there is a lever conflict which makes it more difficult to move. So on the far right there is almost no leverage being pushed into the system and on the far left there is extra resistance from being pushed and in the middle there is again extra resistance from being pushed.
"It's not the size of the dog in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the dog." - Mark Twain
MrVibrating
Addict
Addict
Posts: 2875
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2010 12:19 am
Location: W3

Post by MrVibrating »

deleted
Last edited by MrVibrating on Fri Apr 21, 2017 12:20 am, edited 1 time in total.
MrVibrating
Addict
Addict
Posts: 2875
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2010 12:19 am
Location: W3

Re: re: Into the Vanishing Point..

Post by MrVibrating »

deleted
Last edited by MrVibrating on Fri Apr 21, 2017 12:20 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
preoccupied
Devotee
Devotee
Posts: 1893
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2011 3:28 am
Location: Michigan

re: Into the Vanishing Point..

Post by preoccupied »

You should go ahead and split each of your statements into proofs with a label like Proof 1 and Proof 2. Then when you are talking at proof 5 someone can go back and say Proof 3 was incorrect go back to it. I'm only saying this because I'm angry or mad at you for disregarding what I told you. I told you that you are producing nothing from the design that I described, even though I can't prove it mathematically since I can't remember any math after being assaulted and poisoned by people. You didn't talk back at what I said. You instead listed a bunch of stuff. So in order for me to even argue with you, you have to tell me a list of things at least. But I'm not in this discussion now because I'm disgruntled about other stuff. I know that you're one of the more loopy silly forum members with crazy conspiracy theory ideas. Unless I'm confusing you for someone else. And I'm someone who can barely think at all, but I'm telling you that is only true for me because I was injured by people assaulting me. I've never had any problem not even a small slight problem of any kind that was not caused by people scamming me. You're just wrong. You are stupidly wrong, I just can't prove it.
"It's not the size of the dog in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the dog." - Mark Twain
MrVibrating
Addict
Addict
Posts: 2875
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2010 12:19 am
Location: W3

Post by MrVibrating »

LOL you were talking gibberish and i tried to set you straight on what you were looking at. Yes, the animation to which you refer does nothing useful whatsoever - it's perfectly conservative, with no net gain in energy or momentum. It was a wrong turn, and only one of many dozens i expect.

If you're unable to follow anything of what i've taken the time and effort to explain to you, much less read the threads and try make sense of it yourself before even posting your nonsense in the first place, then i'm the one who deserves to be angry.. :/
Post Reply