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

Post by MrVibrating »

deleted
User avatar
Gregory
Aficionado
Aficionado
Posts: 566
Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2006 10:33 pm
Location: Europe

Post by Gregory »

As for the gravity assisted design, I also expected it to fail. Problem is that the same time the mass is pulled in on the upper curve it also creates a GPE imbalance but with a minus sign. So, as usual gravity can't do any help in that config...
...for the benefit of anyone who does care enough about all this guff to actually make an effort to get their heads around it (Greg, Fletch, Marcello et al), i've just done a crude test - based on the change mentioned before the above interruption - and doubled my input energy.

This doubling was arbitrary. I can multiply it up by any amount, 10x or whatever, limited only by size.

We are ascendant.

So... ummm... what now?
But extending more than retracting you are running into an "extending to infinite radius" glitch, don't you? (If I see it correctly)
Although I have an Alice in wonderland edition infinite radius wheel in my basement, I can loan that to you. ;)

Soon or later, somewhere and somehow the mass needs to be retracted the same amount in sum.
But let me think about it, with some complications I guess there might be a workaround to this...
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 »

Hey that sideways smile belongs to me. I'm the first person to use that a lot in every social group that I interacted with online. It's my internet meme. =-/. =/. :/. :\. Like nobody did that before me.
"It's not the size of the dog in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the dog." - Mark Twain
daanopperman
Devotee
Devotee
Posts: 1546
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 7:43 pm

re: Into the Vanishing Point..

Post by daanopperman »

Hi Mr V ,

MT 44 , wheel A have a center gear .

If you place this wheel inside a elliptical track , that have one side pinned to a pivot , and a fixed weight on the outside of the other end , so that when the track rotates around the pivot it will carry this weight along .

Wheel A has all it's mass on the rim , so that when it runs inside the track , it will rotate at speed , and when it reaches the apex of the ellipse at the far end from the pivot , have max rotational velocity , and climb back to the center without having to drain energy from the mass on the ellipse end .

Moving out , the track with weight on end should not slow down , for the energy supposedly lost to coe will be pumped into the rotation of the wheel A , which will climb back to the center , at which stage , the wheel will be brought to a stop ,and it will be at this stage that the track with the weight on end have to start to accelerate , the centrifugal force created on the wheel inside the track will force it to the rim accelerating to max velocity , not slowing the elliptical track with weight on end down .

Please look at MT 44 ; 45 and MT 123 , the whole idea is based on this 3 MT drawings ,
to have your weight into the center for free , and not loose RKE when the weight move to the rim , and yet be able to accelerate the wheel when the inside weight is closets to the pivot

Daan .
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 »

that's right I think you said Daanopperman. If you have those reloading flywheels like mt44 mt45 load into a lever instead of carrying the weight and then push on an axle rather than carrying the weight on the wheel, the weight will fall backwards and this can help push the reloading process like mt123 by moving gear teeth. That's not all though. And you catch me while I'm uncertain since I'm only gloating about how smart I was when I was a kid. If I'm right about myself then anything that I say is super dangerous like a weapon of mass destruction.
"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 »

Quick update:

We're not ascendant, much, yet... Raising MoI 'for free' on the straights still incurs deceleration upon entering a corner - so it makes no practical difference compared to just extending under CF while rotating; either way, doubling MoI halves RPM, maintaining net energy and momentum.

There is no rise in momentum, reactionless or otherwise, and no rise in RKE.

However in my frantic attempts to salvage anything at all from the oval track idea, i decided to refocus on trying to cause a closed-system rise in momentum...

...and nothing i tried with it worked.

So for instance, i tried accelerating the mass + armature around and around the track, with the track itself mounted to a wheel, free to rotate. Pulling the mass in on the corners generated inertial torque, accelerating the mass + arm, but also counter-accelerating the track + wheel... after a few cycles round the track, having built up speed, i then paused the sim and bolted the mass to the wheel... finding, however, that the net momentum was merely equal to the initial momentum i'd given the mass and arm.

So i decided to abandon the whole scheme, and just go back to basics: the premise was that the inertial torque caused by pulling an orbiting mass inwards was reactionless - the counterforce is centripetal, not angular, and so i spun up a mass + arm by pulling it inwards, then released it, letting it fly back outwards, to collide with an angled rim-stop, imparting its reactionless momentum gain to the wheel.

Remember, that pulling an orbiting mass inwards merely conserves angular momentum - no matter how fast it accelerates, net angular momentum remains constant. But linear momentum - simply the rest mass times velocity - does not; it rises significantly. But in order to harness this momentum rise, the centripetal tether has to be cut - so long as the mass remains anchored to the orbital center, its momentum remains a function of MoI times RPM, and so colliding it with the wheel in this state merely harvests that conserved angular momentum; no matter how fast you accelerate it first.

So i pulled it in, accelerating it, then let it fly back out freely under CF, to strike the angled rim stop. Then, after bouncing back, and before it could fly off outside the wheel's circumference, i again paused the sim and bolted the mass to the wheel.

Success - net momentum raised!

But was the cause of success the principal i'd supposed - the reactionless acceleration phase? Given my poor record of jumping to conclusions of late, i decided to test a simple null hypothesis:

- with the wheel stationary, i simply accelerated a mass radially, straight outwards, to collide with the angled rim stop. It has a 45° angle - perfectly diagonal. So as the mass strikes it, it knocks the wheel clockwise or counter-clockwise, depending on whether the stop is angled up or down.

- as before, as the mass bounced off of the rim stop, i paused and nailed the rebounding mass to the wheel with a rigid joint.. Success again! The net system momentum had risen...


Now i want to re-stress the following point very clearly - please voice any objections at all, no matter how silly they may seem, as this point is absolutely crucial to my working hypothesis:

- conservation of angular momentum is not energy-dependent!

IE. it doesn't matter how much energy you throw at it, the net system momentum should remain constant, unless acted upon by an external force; that is, unless counter-torque is applied between the rotating system and a stator, or background / Earth etc. If something gains clockwise angular momentum, something else must've gained an equal amount of anticlockwise momentum.

My conjecture is that if we can violate this principal, then we're set up to gain energy in the form of runaway system momentum - violating the 1/2 inertia times velocity standard energy cost of momentum. I won't delve into the maths of this again just now as i don't want to lose everyone - but most here will be familiar with the concept already, i hope.

I'll shortly post up animations of these failures and successes, with barebones annotation..
MrVibrating
Addict
Addict
Posts: 2875
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2010 12:19 am
Location: W3

re: Into the Vanishing Point..

Post by MrVibrating »

OK, here's fail_1:

Image


We have a 2 meter radius 10 kg wheel, with 1 kg radially translating mass (green), plus another 1 kg non-radially translating (in red - just to keep the speed down, otherwise pulling the mass all the way into the center like this causes massive acceleration, which quickly gets unmanageable).

So i pump it up for a few cycles, then pause it and nail the armature to the wheel, then run it again for a couple of secs - the residual net momentum we see is about equal to the initial 0.200 kg-m/s it began with, minus slight losses.

Doesn't matter how fast or how many cycles it accelerates for, net momentum does not rise...
Last edited by MrVibrating on Sun Apr 23, 2017 11:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.
MrVibrating
Addict
Addict
Posts: 2875
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2010 12:19 am
Location: W3

re: Into the Vanishing Point..

Post by MrVibrating »

...OK onto success #1


I thought to hell with this robernoster nonsense, surely all we need for reactionless momentum is to simply pull an orbiting mass inwards - this induces torque without counter-torque; then we simply let the mass fly outwards again to strike the wheel, sharing its nice momentum gain..

Image

1.2 m radius wooden wheel, 2.262 kg, the mass on the arm is 1 kg, the arm itself (constituting the 'non-radially translating mass here) is 80 grams.

Et voila! Does exactly what it says on the tin. Expensive, tho - so is there a simpler way?
Last edited by MrVibrating on Sun Apr 23, 2017 11:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.
MrVibrating
Addict
Addict
Posts: 2875
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2010 12:19 am
Location: W3

re: Into the Vanishing Point..

Post by MrVibrating »

...so finally, the null hypothesis:

- here, we have no initial angular acceleration. We just shove the mass out, from stationary, to collide with the rim stop..

Image


Howzat for simple?

No inertial torque needed!

All we've done is cause a purely radial excursion to collide with the angled rim stop, imparting torque and momentum... asymmetrically!

Obviously there is counter-torque and momentum as the mass bounces off in the opposite direction... but upon fastening it to the wheel, we have a directional excess. Net momentum has risen..

Wheel is 1 m radius, 'standard' material, 3.81 kg, outbound mass is 10 kg.. nothing else to it.
MrVibrating
Addict
Addict
Posts: 2875
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2010 12:19 am
Location: W3

Post by MrVibrating »

...so these are pretty rough and dirty tests. Caveat emptor.

But on the face of it, it seems generating reactionless angular momentum is dead easy. Nothing to it.

Could this be the key to Bessler's success?

In terms of consistency with the clues, we have:

- "not much artistry to it". Virtually none, by any standards.. it's as simple as banging two masses together. Duh.

- angled rim stop <=> "slightly warped / normal / orthogonal boards"..?

- radial excursion, consistent with employment of scissorjacks...


Again, the key here, the whole hypothesis, regards closed-system momentum gains. Nothing else. So if gravity was integral, it was only insofar as a means of accomplishing this objective - not overbalancing, which would've been incidental to the reason for his success, which was entirely down to runaway ('diverging') net system momentum..

And this is what seems so exciting to me. Regardless of the energy costs and efficiency (or lack thereof) for now, we appear to have a closed-system rise in angular momentum, and this is what would be responsible for lifting dropped weights. Nothing to do with over / under balancing, purely a matter of an asymmetric distribution of angular momentum in an otherwise closed system.

So this is my new mission. Unless anyone can shoot it down already, i'll be starting a new thread exploring this hypothesis in the next few days..
MrVibrating
Addict
Addict
Posts: 2875
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2010 12:19 am
Location: W3

Re: re: Into the Vanishing Point..

Post by MrVibrating »

daanopperman wrote:Hi Mr V ,

MT 44 , wheel A have a center gear .

If you place this wheel inside a elliptical track , that have one side pinned to a pivot , and a fixed weight on the outside of the other end , so that when the track rotates around the pivot it will carry this weight along .

Wheel A has all it's mass on the rim , so that when it runs inside the track , it will rotate at speed , and when it reaches the apex of the ellipse at the far end from the pivot , have max rotational velocity , and climb back to the center without having to drain energy from the mass on the ellipse end .

Moving out , the track with weight on end should not slow down , for the energy supposedly lost to coe will be pumped into the rotation of the wheel A , which will climb back to the center , at which stage , the wheel will be brought to a stop ,and it will be at this stage that the track with the weight on end have to start to accelerate , the centrifugal force created on the wheel inside the track will force it to the rim accelerating to max velocity , not slowing the elliptical track with weight on end down .

Please look at MT 44 ; 45 and MT 123 , the whole idea is based on this 3 MT drawings ,
to have your weight into the center for free , and not loose RKE when the weight move to the rim , and yet be able to accelerate the wheel when the inside weight is closets to the pivot

Daan .
This sounds interesting, though i'm struggling to follow your description - a sketch would help!

The principle you're aiming for sounds legit tho - if we can re-extend the radius without slowing down then we gain momentum and RKE..

All my efforts at this feat so far have failed however - increasing the radius while traveling along the straight sections of the oval track still encounters deceleration upon entering the next curved section; what happens is that the absolute velocity of the mass is maintained, but that conserved linear velocity at increased radius equals a reduced angular velocity when you start rotating again (following the R^2 multiplier) per MoI=MR^2.

So we find that simply conserving linear velocity is insufficient - entering the corner at double the radius means rotating thru it at half the angular velocity, basically invalidating my whole oval track concept..
User avatar
ME
Addict
Addict
Posts: 3512
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2005 6:37 pm
Location: Netherlands

re: Into the Vanishing Point..

Post by ME »

My conjecture is that if we can violate this principal, then we're set up to gain energy in the form of runaway system momentum - violating the 1/2 inertia times velocity standard energy cost of momentum. I won't delve into the maths of this again just now as i don't want to lose everyone - but most here will be familiar with the concept already, i hope.
Sounds good, but...
In your last animation your moving mass has some Momentum (m*v), it collides with something on the wheel at a certain radius and produces an Angular Momentum (L=m*v*r): Angular Momentum being simplified to Momentum at a certain radius, leading to L=I*w for the whole wheel.
Momentum as well as Kinetic Energy remain conserved... right?

I guess you could make a drifting weight collide at right angles with a wheel/stop to make calculations easier.
Marchello E.
-- May the force lift you up. In case it doesn't, try something else.---
MrVibrating
Addict
Addict
Posts: 2875
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2010 12:19 am
Location: W3

Post by MrVibrating »

..absolutely correct. The whole gig hinges on breaking CoAM.

Again, my point is that CoAM is not supposed to be energy-dependent. So it doesn't matter how much energy you throw at it - you're not supposed to be able to change the net system angular momentum without torquing against some external reference frame.

In every experiment i've tried previously, net system angular momentum was unchanged - no matter how fast things got internally - inside the isolated system - when the moving parts were suddenly braked against one another, net angular motion was precisely its starting value, no more or less (minus entropic losses).

Here however, we collide a radial momentum (which has no angular component), with the wheel, to produce an angular momentum, which apparently has no equal opposite counter-momentum.. hence the net angular momentum has risen.

I admit it seems trivial, until you try achieving the same result by any other means..


To get a good handle on why this is useful, consider the maths of why the "EM drive" (or any working reactionless propulsion system per se) would also be violating CoE, besides CoM. You find that such a craft would end up with more momentum than it has paid for, thus violating KE=1/2mV^2... but only when measured from an external / static reference frame. Internally, CoE still holds.

The maths are simple - i can walk you through it but you'll get more out of the exercise doing it for yourself. It boils down to a diverging reference frame - and exactly the same principle applies in the angular case.. torque without counter-torque, momentum without equal opposite counter-momentum, adds up to OU.

The role of gravity and gravitating masses / GPE would be to provide that static reference frame against which the OU is measured - essentially the wheel will have more energy with which to raise a weight than the GPE we normally measure, and the form of that excess is the runaway / asymmetric directional distribution of momentum.

To get you started, for the linear case, suppose we have a lossless skateboard (no friction), already rolling at X speed, from which we launch a projectile forwards, in the skateboard's direction of travel, but without incurring an equal opposite reactive component upon the skateboard - for instance launch a 1 kg mass to 1 m/s, but without applying an equal opposite 1kg-m/s counter-thrust upon the skateboard. Calculate the energies as measured from on-board the rolling platform, and then again as seen by a stationary observer.

You should find that the static observer measures OU, whereas on-board the skateboard, there is no anomaly between it and the projectile.

Once you've grasped that, just wrap it round into a closed loop, and you have the angular equivalent. That's what i'm aiming for, and what i hope this phenomenon (if real) could be a leg-up to..

For those only looking for a gravitational asymmetry this is going to seem very unintuitive, however unlike a GPE asymmetry, this one actually adds up... depending only on an effective violation of Newton's 3rd.

N3 is generally underappreciated for its role in shoring up CoE, which is a shame, as an N3 break is possibly the most plausible route to OU on the table..

..and as all this starts to sink in, remember Bessler's words that "in a true PMM, everything must, of necessity, go around together - there can be nothing involved in it which remains stationary upon the axle"..! (this in response to suggestions of an internally-hidden stator). His wheels were statorless - unlike just about every type of motor or engine you can imagine, it didn't apply torque against the Earth in order to accelerate, but on the contrary, depended upon not doing so..
daanopperman
Devotee
Devotee
Posts: 1546
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 7:43 pm

re: Into the Vanishing Point..

Post by daanopperman »

Hi Mr V ,

A drawing is not an option , I have no drawing program from where I post , but some thought's on what I try to convey .

If I have a pivoted bar , with balanced weights on either end , olso pivoted on the ends of the bar , and I spin up the weights , with a stationery bar , the bar will start to spin in the opposite direction of the weight spin direction .

My take on this is that the outer halve of the wheel have to travel a greater distance through space than the inner halve . Although equal distances from the wheel pivot , 2 points on the wheel rim will not travel the same distance through space if the wheel is pivoted on a arm .

MT 44 dipicts a drawing of a " flywheel " with a small gear at the centre , obviously , driving the wheel through this small gear will result in great velocity of the wheel . It is this wheel that I purpose to have on the wheel spoke ( bar ) , of course geared , traveling in pairs from axel to rim , but as the wheels slow down by being drawn to the axel , the rim of the wheel must increase velocity , not only by COM , but by the slowing down of the 2 wheels on the bar .

On the out stroke , wheel moving from axel to rim , this is where the 2spinning flywheels will push the main wheel into rotation , using centrifugal force to spin up the 2 inner wheels .

While the 2 inner wheels is accelerated down the main wheel spoke , the inertia gained will be used to bring the 2 spinning wheels back to the center .

Likewise , if I spin the bar up with 2 pivoted weights on its end , the 2 stationary weights will start to spin up in opposite direction as to which they are driven .

It was found , in the early history of aviation , that if you accelerate the engine while takeoff , you would end up in the ditch , the force perpendicular to the torque of the engine direction was responsible for this to happen , so it was standerd procedure to take off as smoothly as possible without any acceleration close to the ground . Fletch might give a better explanation of this .

Daan .
User avatar
ME
Addict
Addict
Posts: 3512
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2005 6:37 pm
Location: Netherlands

re: Into the Vanishing Point..

Post by ME »

Here however, we collide a radial momentum (which has no angular component), with the wheel, to produce an angular momentum, which apparently has no equal opposite counter-momentum.. hence the net angular momentum has risen.
yes... We just collided linear momentum with something on the wheel to produce a counter-momentum, just like any other collision - the incoming momentum deflects just the same and so does the wheel at the point of impact. Such result doesn't change because that point of contact has a pivoting point somewhere else, but only that it subsequently results in rotation.
The impact was still torque (that's why you needed an impact facing away from the axle).
Thus indeed: "you're not supposed to be able to change the net system angular momentum without torquing against some external reference frame."
To get a good handle on why this is useful, consider the maths of why the "EM drive"
Sorry, I don't understand EM-drives.
or any working reactionless propulsion system per se
As far as I have seen these "reactionless propulsion systems" were (let's call them:) N3-drives.
suppose we have a lossless skateboard (no friction)... Calculate the energies as measured from on-board the rolling platform, and then again as seen by a stationary observer.
Many times we have discussed this, and many times those Energy-values are meaningless or relative to some wrong relation.
Just recalculate any beneficial effect of energy-gain back to an amount of potential energy (height) in a stationary FoR so we can present it as some potential bar-graph and look at it.
The maths are simple - i can walk you through it but you'll get more out of the exercise doing it for yourself. It boils down to a diverging reference frame - and exactly the same principle applies in the angular case.. torque without counter-torque, momentum without equal opposite counter-momentum, adds up to OU.
Please walk me through this math.
For example I'm able to produce a parametric result (formula) for the angular speed of your last animation, but I don't know how to calculate OU.
You should find that the static observer measures OU, whereas on-board the skateboard, there is no anomaly between it and the projectile.
A suspect a PM should indeed somehow have such hidden WTF-principle (like so many invention), as well as in math as in mechanical ways.
Once you've grasped that, just wrap it round into a closed loop, and you have the angular equivalent. That's what i'm aiming for, and what i hope this phenomenon (if real) could be a leg-up to..
ooohw, you "QED"-ed? :-)

N3 is generally underappreciated for its role in shoring up CoE, which is a shame, as an N3 break is possibly the most plausible route to OU on the table..

..and as all this starts to sink in, remember Bessler's words that "in a true PMM, everything must, of necessity, go around together - there can be nothing involved in it which remains stationary upon the axle"..! (this in response to suggestions of an internally-hidden stator). His wheels were statorless - unlike just about every type of motor or engine you can imagine, it didn't apply torque against the Earth in order to accelerate, but on the contrary, depended upon not doing so..
Yes, I tend to agree.
Marchello E.
-- May the force lift you up. In case it doesn't, try something else.---
Post Reply