Not "Into the Vanishing Point"

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

Moderator: scott

User avatar
Grimer
Addict
Addict
Posts: 5280
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2009 9:46 am
Location: Harrow, England
Contact:

Not "Into the Vanishing Point"

Post by Grimer »

Since MrVibrating has asked that people refrain from derailing his thread I've started this separate thread to help MrVibrating out before he follows the Oozlum bird into the vanishing point.... ;-)

Following the insights I gained from my plastic Ferris wheel I've splashed out on a metal Ferris wheel. I had intended to buy a Meccano kit but Amazon had run out so I bought a eitech kit instead.

Image

The first thing to notice is that you do not need Paternoster motion for weights to progress around a wheel without rotation of those weights taking place. All that's required is zero friction at the weight support axle.


This represents the classic pin joint where zero moment transmission is assumed in structural calculations. A pin jointed structure, such as a bridge truss, is non redundant. Failure of any member leads to failure of the truss as a whole.

Zero friction represents one boundary condition.

Complete fixity represents the other.

Now if you think about it the Ferris wheel represents the zero friction boundary.

If by some misfortune the axles of the cars jam to give complete fixity then the passengers will be tipped out and, like Bessler, suffer an untimely demise. :-)

I think that's enough for member's attention spans so I'll save the rest for further posts.
Attachments
eitech wheel.jpg
Who is she that cometh forth as the morning rising, fair as the moon, bright as the sun, terribilis ut castrorum acies ordinata?
MrVibrating
Addict
Addict
Posts: 2875
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2010 12:19 am
Location: W3

Post by MrVibrating »

Hi Frank, i've already tried this concept a few years back, called it "pods", and variations on it. Couldn't find a gradient though.
User avatar
Grimer
Addict
Addict
Posts: 5280
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2009 9:46 am
Location: Harrow, England
Contact:

re: Not "Into the Vanishing Point"

Post by Grimer »

MrVibrating wrote:Hi Frank, i've already tried this concept a few years back, called it "pods", and variations on it. Couldn't find a gradient though.
I'm not surprised. It's not easy to find because you're dealing with a dynamic instability where things flip from one state to another.

I bought the eiteck kit merely because it was a cheap and cheerful way to get a well engineered wheel which can be quickly adapted to different configurations.

I made some dumbbell weights and after removing all the pod paraphernalia mounted the weights with the pod axles passing through the dumbbell centre of gravity (CG).

After playing around with the setup for a bit I could see what the problem was.

There are two boundary states for the dumbbells.

The first is zero friction between the dumbbells and the axles. The axle rotation is locked (like the moon) and the dumbbells are horizontal.

As the wheel rotates the dumbbells remain horizontal. Because zero friction is unachievable a very small weight is attached to the underside of each dumbbell at its CG.. The dumbbell may be see as a boundary case of the pod.

As the speed increases and the friction couple increases, instability sets in.
This is analogous to the behaviour of long columns where as the load on the column increases the column reaches a small threshold deformation in bending where runaway buckling takes place.

In the case of the dumbbells they snap from a horizontal attitude to a radial inline attitude with one half of a dumbbell perpendicular to the circumference pointing out and the other half pointing towards the centre.

The couple generated as the wheel rotates in the radial case is absorbed as strain energy in the same way as the Roberval Balance absorbs strain energy to produce its anomalous result.

Thus no external couple is generated at either boundary.

In the first case there is no couple at all.
In the second case a couple is generated but is absorbed inside the material as strain energy.

To generate a couple passing from the dumbbells to the centre and thus rotating the wheel one has to maintain the dumbbells in a half way position. One can do this with springs.

That's what one might call the Executive Summary. :-)

If you're not familiar with the theory of long columns you should look it up.

Oh - and the gradient you are looking for, MrVibrating, is the Ersatz gravity gradient.
This is responsible for the instability. With each bell at equal EG "height" they "weigh" the same as each other. But immediately a small rotational displacement takes place the "lower weight weighs" more than the "upper weight". This continues until the dumbbell is "vertical".

The words in inverted commas are the EG equivalent of the corresponding NG terms.
Who is she that cometh forth as the morning rising, fair as the moon, bright as the sun, terribilis ut castrorum acies ordinata?
MrVibrating
Addict
Addict
Posts: 2875
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2010 12:19 am
Location: W3

Post by MrVibrating »

LOL i meant PE gradient but whatever floats our dumbells i guess!

My initial angle on this concept was that the weight of each 'pod' remains constant, while gravitational interactions take place within / upon the pods. So the system is always balanced, but nonetheless rotation causes GPE interactions, and, at least i had hoped, vice versa. Couldn't make it fly though.

I later revisited the concept, to include inertial interactions - the CF vector relative to the pods undergoes a 180° reversal each cycle - so 'inwards' and 'outwards' with regard to the hanging pods and net rotation are constantly changing places. Likewise, while CF is always 'outwards', gravity is always downwards, but due to the pod's 'tidal locked' axial rotation, 'downwards' is also alternating between inwards and outwards.. Again tho, i could find no energy asymmetry. All this stuff scattered across various threads, some of it here.

What i'm doing now is more like what Steorn were at with "torque control as a function of induced B", but here the induced field is inertia and momentum. Same basic deal tho, i'm looking for some kind of margin between interacting differentials - we have KE=1/2mV^2 and its angular equivalent in 1/2MoI*RPM^2 as the standard metric of momentum's energy value, both of which depend upon Newton's 3rd law, and whereas 'm' in the former term is invariant, 'MoI' is variable.. so it's a potential 'wildcard' in the momentum-to-energy conversion factor that might be able to offer some kind of counterpoint to the usual half-square-of-velocity accumulator.

Bessler was clear that being statorless was a necessity, which is consistent with energy from an N3 violation (ie. a runaway or divergent reference frame caused by an effective N3 break and resulting unbalanced momentum), however he also seemed to be depending upon gravitational interactions, which of course remain intrinsically bound to the non-inertial frame. So while the energy value of the GPE interactions can only remain constant, a runaway inertial frame only has excess energy in relation to a non-inertial frame... IOW, it seems likely the purposes of the weights was to provide a fixed-rate currency just to give the variable rate factors something to bounce off of. If the exploit also benefits further from the effort of driving attached loads, as Bessler claimed, then this may be for the similar or related reasons - basically, the OU (or UU) energy resulting from an asymmetric distribution of momentum in an otherwise elastic interaction only exists in relation to an external static frame. Internally, the diverging reference frame is essentially a rest frame, the only evidence that you're getting more momentum than you're paying for would be via some external reference. Or else, you could carry an on-board accelerometer, note that you're paying a constant rate for each successive burst of acceleration and put 2 + 2 together... But still, you'd only be able to harvest that gain by colliding with something else.

So this would provide an overriding purpose for GPE interactions, that couldn't be fulfilled otherwise in a statorless system.. if he needed to be statorless, and vertical, then this seems the most consistent implication... GPE for a stable base rate of momentum / energy to trade in, vs that of inertial torques via MoI variations.

For example, if a given GPE is worth 2 Joules, that might also correspond to the energy of a 1 kg mass at 2 meters / sec. However, if that mass was accelerated using an effective N3 violation, then we might've accelerated 1 kg by 1 m/s at its KE=1/2mV^2 base value of 1/2 a Joule.. and then repeated that deal for the second m/s - end result: 1 kg at 2 m/s, worth 2 J but bought and payed for with just 1 J. 50% OU in the resulting RKE - GPE exchange. And that's just for two successive N3-dodging accelerations. If we can apply 4 in a row, then according to KE=1/2mV^2, 1 kg at 4 m/s has 8 J, yet we'd've accelerated it in 4 discrete 1/2 J / kg-m/s steps, for a total cost of 2 J, so we've gone from 50% OU to 200% OU.

The further the inertial frame is able to diverge, ie. the more successive units of momentum we can purchase at a fixed rate (not necessarily 'fixed', but any divergence from the usual half-square accumulator), the greater the CoP.

That's what i call a gradient. Mathematically solid. You can dice it and slice it and quantify it objectively, it's not free energy ex-nihilo, there's no mysterious 'step 2', no room for ambiguity and no need for handwavium or new physics - motion is relative; velocity is relative, momentum and KE are relative but angular momentum is objective and absolute, and subject to hysteresis - and how much more you can afford depends upon how much you have already. It gets much more expensive the more you buy (by the half-square of rising velocity). Ultimately, because of the practical constraints of Newton's 3rd. So any interaction able to yield an asymmetric or non-zero momentum sum has the potential to cheat that 1/2^2 accumulator - piggybacking off free momentum and its velocity so that a 1/2 J / kg-m/s acceleration could be from, say, 9 up to 10 m/s, instead of just 0 - 1 m/s, and so worth 9.5 J to a GPE load in gravity's reference frame - almost 20 times what we paid for it.

Mathematically, there's just nowhere else to go. So it must be this way..
User avatar
Grimer
Addict
Addict
Posts: 5280
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2009 9:46 am
Location: Harrow, England
Contact:

Post by Grimer »

MrVibrating wrote:LOL i meant PE gradient but whatever floats our dumbells i guess!

My initial angle on this concept was that the weight of each 'pod' remains constant, while gravitational interactions take place within / upon the pods. So the system is always balanced, but nonetheless rotation causes GPE interactions, and, at least i had hoped, vice versa. Couldn't make it fly though.

I later revisited the concept, to include inertial interactions - the CF vector relative to the pods undergoes a 180° reversal each cycle - so 'inwards' and 'outwards' with regard to the hanging pods and net rotation are constantly changing places. Likewise, while CF is always 'outwards', gravity is always downwards, but due to the pod's 'tidal locked' axial rotation, 'downwards' is also alternating between inwards and outwards.. Again tho, i could find no energy asymmetry. All this stuff scattered across various threads, some of it here.

What i'm doing now is more like what Steorn were at with "torque control as a function of induced B", but here the induced field is inertia and momentum. Same basic deal tho, i'm looking for some kind of margin between interacting differentials - we have KE=1/2mV^2 and its angular equivalent in 1/2MoI*RPM^2 as the standard metric of momentum's energy value, both of which depend upon Newton's 3rd law, and whereas 'm' in the former term is invariant, 'MoI' is variable.. so it's a potential 'wildcard' in the momentum-to-energy conversion factor that might be able to offer some kind of counterpoint to the usual half-square-of-velocity accumulator.

Bessler was clear that being statorless was a necessity, which is consistent with energy from an N3 violation (ie. a runaway or divergent reference frame caused by an effective N3 break and resulting unbalanced momentum), however he also seemed to be depending upon gravitational interactions, which of course remain intrinsically bound to the non-inertial frame. So while the energy value of the GPE interactions can only remain constant, a runaway inertial frame only has excess energy in relation to a non-inertial frame... IOW, it seems likely the purposes of the weights was to provide a fixed-rate currency just to give the variable rate factors something to bounce off of. If the exploit also benefits further from the effort of driving attached loads, as Bessler claimed, then this may be for the similar or related reasons - basically, the OU (or UU) energy resulting from an asymmetric distribution of momentum in an otherwise elastic interaction only exists in relation to an external static frame. Internally, the diverging reference frame is essentially a rest frame, the only evidence that you're getting more momentum than you're paying for would be via some external reference. Or else, you could carry an on-board accelerometer, note that you're paying a constant rate for each successive burst of acceleration and put 2 + 2 together... But still, you'd only be able to harvest that gain by colliding with something else.

So this would provide an overriding purpose for GPE interactions, that couldn't be fulfilled otherwise in a statorless system.. if he needed to be statorless, and vertical, then this seems the most consistent implication... GPE for a stable base rate of momentum / energy to trade in, vs that of inertial torques via MoI variations.

For example, if a given GPE is worth 2 Joules, that might also correspond to the energy of a 1 kg mass at 2 meters / sec. However, if that mass was accelerated using an effective N3 violation, then we might've accelerated 1 kg by 1 m/s at its KE=1/2mV^2 base value of 1/2 a Joule.. and then repeated that deal for the second m/s - end result: 1 kg at 2 m/s, worth 2 J but bought and payed for with just 1 J. 50% OU in the resulting RKE - GPE exchange. And that's just for two successive N3-dodging accelerations. If we can apply 4 in a row, then according to KE=1/2mV^2, 1 kg at 4 m/s has 8 J, yet we'd've accelerated it in 4 discrete 1/2 J / kg-m/s steps, for a total cost of 2 J, so we've gone from 50% OU to 200% OU.

The further the inertial frame is able to diverge, ie. the more successive units of momentum we can purchase at a fixed rate (not necessarily 'fixed', but any divergence from the usual half-square accumulator), the greater the CoP.

That's what i call a gradient. Mathematically solid. You can dice it and slice it and quantify it objectively, it's not free energy ex-nihilo, there's no mysterious 'step 2', no room for ambiguity and no need for handwavium or new physics - motion is relative; velocity is relative, momentum and KE are relative but angular momentum is objective and absolute, and subject to hysteresis - and how much more you can afford depends upon how much you have already. It gets much more expensive the more you buy (by the half-square of rising velocity). Ultimately, because of the practical constraints of Newton's 3rd. So any interaction able to yield an asymmetric or non-zero momentum sum has the potential to cheat that 1/2^2 accumulator - piggybacking off free momentum and its velocity so that a 1/2 J / kg-m/s acceleration could be from, say, 9 up to 10 m/s, instead of just 0 - 1 m/s, and so worth 9.5 J to a GPE load in gravity's reference frame - almost 20 times what we paid for it.

Mathematically, there's just nowhere else to go. So it must be this way..
I notice you have a strange habit of typing a lowercase i instead of the correct upper case I. You seemed determined to stick to this habit. Good for you. I feel the same about Ersatz.

Interestingly enough it's a great shibboleth which enables one to distinguish between different MrVibrations. One who has a interest in model cars for example.

I attempted to understand the above post but soon got lost. For me mathematics always comes after the physics.

And dumbbells has two b-s. ;-)
MrVibrating
Addict
Addict
Posts: 2875
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2010 12:19 am
Location: W3

Post by MrVibrating »

Yep the 'i' thing's in me fingers now, don't mind pressing shift for other people but can't be arsed with it informally.

And nope, not into model cars... i have no social media accounts or personal profiles online. My handle's a Monty Python character, so unlikely to be unique.

Obviously, physics is maths, but overcomplicating a simple point is just poor writing - all i was saying is that mechanical OU implies a closed-system momentum gain.. which i guess is pretty obvious, really. Since the KE value of momentum squares with velocity, free velocity = free energy. This is the only way that mechanical OU is even mathematically possible, therefore if Bessler was for real, then it is possible.
User avatar
Grimer
Addict
Addict
Posts: 5280
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2009 9:46 am
Location: Harrow, England
Contact:

re: Not "Into the Vanishing Point"

Post by Grimer »

MrVibrating wrote:Yep the 'i' thing's in me fingers now, don't mind pressing shift for other people but can't be arsed with it informally.

And nope, not into model cars... i have no social media accounts or personal profiles online. My handle's a Monty Python character, so unlikely to be unique.
Yes, I had discovered Python's Mr Vibrating (Cleese in the Argument Room).
I thought I was being so clever with the shibboleth idea. :-) Obviously not. :-(

I admire your manic devotion to your task and I wish you well. The important thing is that PM is solved, not who solves it.

I will continue with my 3rd derivative energy approach in this thread and we'll see who gets to the winning post first, eh!

At least with my eitech wheel I have now added experiment to my theory so I'm one up on you there. I'm sure Ralph and the garage mechanics will approve.
Who is she that cometh forth as the morning rising, fair as the moon, bright as the sun, terribilis ut castrorum acies ordinata?
User avatar
Grimer
Addict
Addict
Posts: 5280
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2009 9:46 am
Location: Harrow, England
Contact:

Post by Grimer »

MrVibrating wrote:Yep the 'i' thing's in me fingers now, don't mind pressing shift for other people but can't be arsed with it informally.

And nope, not into model cars... i have no social media accounts or personal profiles online. My handle's a Monty Python character, so unlikely to be unique.

Obviously, physics is maths, but overcomplicating a simple point is just poor writing - all i was saying is that mechanical OU implies a closed-system momentum gain.. which i guess is pretty obvious, really. Since the KE value of momentum squares with velocity, free velocity = free energy. This is the only way that mechanical OU is even mathematically possible, therefore if Bessler was for real, then it is possible.
No mention of strain energy I notice. Our approaches are certainly very different. But that is a good thing.
Who is she that cometh forth as the morning rising, fair as the moon, bright as the sun, terribilis ut castrorum acies ordinata?
User avatar
Grimer
Addict
Addict
Posts: 5280
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2009 9:46 am
Location: Harrow, England
Contact:

re: Not "Into the Vanishing Point"

Post by Grimer »

Here is a not very good photo of the eitech wheel on my desk extension.

Image

For simplicity I've only made 2 dumbbells. These pivot on fixed axles at opposite ends of the wheel diameter

Theoretically if these dumbbells start off horizontal they will stay horizontal as the wheel rotates. This is the Newtonian Gravity (NG) boundary where NG dominates and Ersatz Gravity (EG) is subordinate.

It's not possible to remove all friction between the central holes of the dumbbells so I've added that V component to provide a small righting moment.

The wheel's motor was unlikely to provide enough speed to show the EG boundary to the best advantage so it's been removed. In its place I've mounted a girder arm on that red meccano disk so the the wheel can be turned by finger.

Unfortunately I've found a much simpler way of getting PM with three pendulums (baby bear, mummy bear and daddy bear) which if viable will make this wheel redundant.

I'll leave revealing what that is until I've finished demonstrating this wheel.
Who is she that cometh forth as the morning rising, fair as the moon, bright as the sun, terribilis ut castrorum acies ordinata?
User avatar
Tarsier79
Addict
Addict
Posts: 5002
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 2:17 am
Location: Qld, Australia

re: Not "Into the Vanishing Point"

Post by Tarsier79 »

Good to see some real world testing! Can you relate your real world to your mathematical model?
User avatar
Grimer
Addict
Addict
Posts: 5280
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2009 9:46 am
Location: Harrow, England
Contact:

re: Not "Into the Vanishing Point"

Post by Grimer »

I've managed to work out how to take a video with my HTC mobile that one of my sons passed on to me. I know the quality is crap but I'm not trying to win an Oscar but merely to illustrate some dynamic phenomena with the wheel.

https://vid.me/zzt1

As you can see, I've reinstalled the motor. I did this because it was difficult to get a smooth action by hand. I presume the jerkiness of the video is down to interference between the motion of the wheel and the frame rate of the video.

I want to draw attention to the effect of friction between the fixed pod axles and the pods. The pod axles are rotating once every revolution of the wheel whereas the pods are attempting to remain horizontal under the action of NG.

However the action of friction between the pod axles and the pods has the effect of tilting the pods nose down in the counter clockwise direction of motion. It is as though evil Ersatz gravity has enlisted the axles as secret agents to push the pods from the NG boundary where the orientation of the pods is horizontal towards its own boundary where their orientation will be radial.

Now moving towards an intermediate stage between the two boundaries is good because sure as God made little green apples we are not going to get PM if we remain stuck at the boundaries.

However friction is bad since this leads to energy escaping from the system as heat.

So, how can we retain the intermediate state without loss of energy?

Answer: To use a spring to give the equivalent force - a coil spring perhaps?
Does that suggest anything?

It suggests to me a balance wheel.

If we spread the mass of the two dumbbell weights around the circumference as exemplified by the Rubber Band Motor then we even have something which looks like a balance wheel

Moreover, the presence of the W weight makes the dumbbell into a pendulum of a period of about 1 second - which rather surprised me.

This suggests the possibility of synchronising it with the rotation of the wheel to give an inbound position on one side and an outbound position on the other.

Would this overcome the height distance problem. I'm not sure.

But using strain energy suggests another possible approach.
In the Roberval balance an anomalous situation is produced by strain in the balance components.

Could this process be reversed and strain be used to produce a net turning moment of the wheel as a whole with the weights in positions where they appear not to be producing any turning moment?

I suspect the answer is yes - just as I suspected that the magnetic refrigeration cycle must be reversible to produce a magnetic power cycle - especially as in explaining the magnetic refrigeration they even map the individual steps onto those of the Carnot cycle.

Anyway, this simple experiment with the eitech wheel has given me a lot to think about. :-)
Who is she that cometh forth as the morning rising, fair as the moon, bright as the sun, terribilis ut castrorum acies ordinata?
User avatar
Grimer
Addict
Addict
Posts: 5280
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2009 9:46 am
Location: Harrow, England
Contact:

re: Not "Into the Vanishing Point"

Post by Grimer »

I've just has my afternoon nap and as I awoke I realised something.

The pendulum component of the pod, i.e. the V is inboard on the left descending side and outboard on the right ascending side. This provides an asymmetry to the weights and turning moment - unfortunately in the wrong direction. It opposes rotation rather than assisting it. It provides negative feedback. Some way has to be found to provide positive feedback.

It seems there are plenty of variables to play around with. One could release the angled pendulum to swing at some point in its orbit for example.

I was fortunate to start off with those dumbbell weights for if I'd started with a simple pendulum the friction effect would have been below the threshold of perception.

Mmm... more to think about.
Who is she that cometh forth as the morning rising, fair as the moon, bright as the sun, terribilis ut castrorum acies ordinata?
User avatar
agor95
Addict
Addict
Posts: 7463
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 8:09 pm
Location: Earth Orbit
Contact:

re: Not "Into the Vanishing Point"

Post by agor95 »

Good to see you are now a builder.

I have pondered this inertia mass delay. This then prevents the mass from being in the required position.
User avatar
Grimer
Addict
Addict
Posts: 5280
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2009 9:46 am
Location: Harrow, England
Contact:

re: Not "Into the Vanishing Point"

Post by Grimer »

Image

As you can see from the above I've now added the Kassel "pendulum" to the eitech wheel.

I think I can see its possible potential.

In effect you have two interconnected wheels of different diameters with NG energy passed back and forth between them.

I haven't yet tried to tune the system. I will prepare a video of the wheel spun up and post it on vidme to give members the feeling for what is going on.

I now realise that NG must be the variable that maps to the Compreture Carnot variable. Just as Compreture cycles up and down between two fixed potentials, NG does the same

This means that EG must account for the other two variables.

Could the lifting up and the falling of the Kassel "pendulum" correspond to the
two isothermal lines I wonder?

Plenty of scope for experimentation. Fortunately eitech/meccano components provide a host of adaptable components.
Attachments
Kassel-2ndFig.jpg
Who is she that cometh forth as the morning rising, fair as the moon, bright as the sun, terribilis ut castrorum acies ordinata?
User avatar
Grimer
Addict
Addict
Posts: 5280
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2009 9:46 am
Location: Harrow, England
Contact:

re: Not "Into the Vanishing Point"

Post by Grimer »

https://vid.me/85NJ

I haven't attempted to tune it yet but you can see the general idea.

The falling weight puts energy into the pendulum from the wheel on the down stroke which is given back to the wheel from the pendulum on the upstroke.
Who is she that cometh forth as the morning rising, fair as the moon, bright as the sun, terribilis ut castrorum acies ordinata?
Post Reply