Plying CF as pseudo-inertia to scam N3

[MrVibrating]

There's another potential application of this symmetry break, if it's real - suppose we take this to the next level, and try my original concept here of using centrifugal force, in place of gravity....


...so you have a pair of masses, this time aligned radially, in a horizontal wheel (let's keep gravity out of it till we have some need of it), and they're orbiting around, experiencing CF.

As before, an impulse is applied between them, pushing one in and the other out.

At this point, note that since CF is uniform around the wheel for a given mass and radius, there is no reason the two masses interacting here need to be together, as if mounted to the same spoke - they could be at different radii, and so different levels of CF, on separate radial lines and / or at different relative angles.. or curved radial trajectories even.. lotta play there.

But basically, as before, one mass is balanced against CF, either not moving at all, or not enough to soak up an equitable balance of momentum from the interaction, anyway.. and so we end up with an asymmetric distribution of radial momentum, this time..

This means the forces involved rise with angular velocity, obviously, so we're no longer limited to 9.81 J per kg-m/s..

But also consider what happens if we had such a system with a pair of counter-rotating wheels... the angular counter-forces would cancel, but if the inertial interactions, on each wheel, both occur at say 12 o'clock, when both clockwise and anticlockwise unbalanced radial momenta are aimed in the same direction.. applying a net momentum in the same, linear direction...

Pushing the boat out for now... still, something to think about, which i hope to get to try before long..

[MrVibrating]

Ha just realised today that i've actually been onto this asymmetry for a good few years already now..

..anyone who follows my BS occasionally might remember me pointing out how gravity basically reverses the sign of reaction momentum? I often used the example of throwing a mass upwards, pointing out that since what goes up must come down, the thing going up could be reaction mass...

I also repeatedly made this same point with regards to pendulums! Use one as reaction matter and it swings up to some apex, halts and comes right back down!

I demonstrated this with sims of a wheel plus pendulum, sharing the same axle, and with equal angular inertias - apply a brief torque impulse and they counter-rotate, or at least, the wheel does, and pendulum too at first, until it reaches its zenith and heads back down..

..arriving back at BDC, all of the system momentum is now oriented in the same direction, and, since a solid disc is radially uniform, effectively, both in the same location.

Pendulum. Wheel. Torque. Leave at the 6 o' clock position, excursion up to say 9 o' clock, then back down to 6 o' clock, and there, leaving Newton's 3rd law effectively broken, if only for a moment.

But back then i couldn't see how to scale it up - an N3 break's only useful if you can close-cycle it, so that you're gaining momentum from inside the system. In principle, a single-stage N3 break could still be exploited, but a minimum two-stage reactionless acceleration would exhibit clear mechanical magic, in terms of input to output energies.

And again, this is fundamentally the same reason why simply accelerating a mass via a force applied between it and the ground, or the rim or axle of a wheel, doesn't really count as reactionless acceleration; in the former case, the counter-momentum's infinitesimal, and in the latter, it's still being earthed, only via the axle and support posts.. but it's still counter momentum, and can't accelerate with the rest of the system..

Since we don't want to accelerate the earth plus our wheel - ie. a closed system asymmetric inertial interaction between our wheel and the earth, were it to gain energy, would a) be of no practical use, and b) not a good kind of pollution, if there is one. So the real breakthrough will be managing to cycle a reactionless acceleration between a pair (or more) of free inertias that are in some sense semi-rigidly connected and thus able to accelerate together as a system. We want to impart a force between two masses, that results in an asymmetric distribution of momentum between them, and then re-connect or collide them again in order to equalise that asymmetric distribution into a shared net momentum.

Basically an asymmetric inertial interaction is causing a disequilibrium of momentum, and a subsequent fully-elastic, symmetrical interaction resettles the system into a new equilibrium, only at a higher or lower net momentum than it began with.

And so it is insufficient to merely render an N3 break - to rectify and consolidate a momentum gain and then, energy, the momentum asymmetry between the interacting masses has to be re-equalised, resulting in a higher net system momentum that is free to so accelerate as the full interaction is successively cycled. This rising net system momentum is our free-energy multiplier, sliding us right up the 1/2mV^2 axis. Giggity.

Looking back, i think my mental block was that i didn't fully apply the asymmetry i'd kept writing about when i tried to visualise it - i kept imagining simply throwing a mass upwards, and then thinking "how's that challenge N3 if the Earth's momentum's involved?"... but the terms by which i'd been describing the exploit were specifically that gravity reverses the sign of reaction mass aimed up at it.. which is not what's happening when you simply throw something upwards..

And so this is where i've finally caught up with myself - just last week, finally realsing that the easy way to consider a vertical inertial interaction is to make the force involved precisely 2 G. Just for illustrative purposes, to delineate the dynamics, and so highlight any potential differential.

...and the rest is rantary. So here we are. Chuck an inertia upwards, whilst chucking another downwards, at any mutually-applied force magnitude, and the gravitational counter-acceleration of the upper mass results in it receiving less momentum than the lower one. The correct amount of momentum has been produced, but its distribution skewed by gravity's passive uniform acceleration. If we then re-collide or reconnect these two masses somehow, then their momenta will equalise, yielding a non-zero sum, equal to the applied vs gravitational force delta! In extrema, gravity will precisely null a 1 G upwards force, and if that force is also pushing against an equal opposite inertia then it too must be experiencing a 1G force, in addition to gravity, and so an absolute optimum 2 G force applied between the masses will yield a peak efficiency of 9.81 Joules per kg/m-s of reactionless momentum gained, fixed at that speed-invariant rate, in principle, no matter how much momentum we buy..

So if we have 2 kg as in this case, a 1 m/s acceleration of the net system costs 19.62 J, hence if we began at say a base speed of 1 m/s already, with a net system KE of 1/2 * 2 kg * 1 m/s * 1 m/2 = 1 Joule, and then apply our first 19.62 J 2 kg-m/s acceleration of the net system, it now has 1/2 * 2 kg * 2 m/s * 2 m/s = 4 Joules...

"..but wait!", you're thinking; "we've spent almost 20 J to gain 4 J?" Is this a hiding to nowhere or what?

Well let's just see where it goes... KE = 1/2 mV^2, remember.. a squaring function, vs a linear function.. see where it's going? Can you guess where the line integral intersection is yet? You can see it coming though, right?

;)

So we apply another 2 kg-m/s acceleration, for another 19.62 J. Net speed is now 3 meters per second. Do the math; at 3 m/s 2 kg has 9 J.

So we've gained 9 J for how much input energy? You're thinking 2 * 19.62 J, right? Wrong. Where'd that energy go? Did it disappear up a force gradient? 'Course not - it's still right there on the masses, where we left it. Assuming fully-elastic collisions throughout, the gravitationally-asymmetrically-apportioned momentum distribution equalises the moment the two masses collide again, whereupon they bounce off one another at equal speeds and momentums, with 9.81 J of KE each..

So... we've input 19.62 J, and now we have 19.62 + 9 J = 28.62 J.

The 19.62 J is still confined to the two moving masses, carrying 9.81 J each, relative to one another, right?

So where's this extra 9 J actually manifested then? Haha! You see? The reference frames have diverged..! we're in hyperspace baby.. that 9 J is the KE of the system's net momentum - after the momenta of the masses themselves is cancelled!

Let's continue, to see what happens..

At 4 m/s absolute, we've gained 16 J. Starting to stack up eh? That 1/2V^2 multiplier's starting to kick in..

At 5 m/s, 25 J. Plus the 19.62 J we gave it in the initial cycle.

So we'd be in excess of 2x over-unity at an edge speed velocity of 5 m/s if this interaction were looped around the perimeter of a vertical wheel. For a 2 meter-radius wheel, this equates to around 24 RPM.

Taking 1 ell as slighty over 1 meter, a 12 meter-diameter wheel would reach an edge-speed of 5 m/s at 8 RPM.

But that's just for one mechanism.. still, at that speed it will have twice as much KE as has been spent internally.

These are all lossless optimums of course, and a real-world 20 J impulse between two 1 kg masses in freefall followed by a collision is going to be noisy, heavy and lossy.. but the gradient's there, and accessible...

Again, the principle's unintuitive and hard to visualise because you're looking at a single pair of bouncing masses, yet with two different reference frames and different net energy in each frame. But that's the whole point! That's what "over-unity" tacitly implies in the first place!. This is a real, classical symmetry break no one else seems to have noticed the implications of...

..except maybe someone..

..someone who'd long given up on any prospects of a gravitational asymmetry, and moved on to more elementary thoughts of simply perpetuating motion itself...

[MrVibrating]

..LOL.. here's the clincher on this - if you're the really prudely sceptical type, you're probably thinking that the gain in KE is simply the GPE converted in free-fall, right?

;)

I know you are. It's cool. Think it over carefully tho:

- only the lower mass accelerates during the interaction. The upper mass's velocity remains constant while its partner accelerates alone, gaining all of the input momentum from the applied mutual force.

- however it's also gaining all of the energy being imparted - the source of that energy rise is two-fold; half of it's from GPE, the other half from the applied impulse.

- upon re-lifting, that portion of the momentum and KE gained from GPE will be lost again, leaving only the momentum and energy input via the impulse.. plus whatever's accumulated over the preceding cycles.

- if GPE did any other work upon the system, what was it? There was none. The mass dropped, and we re-lifted it for equal energy. At the upper mass though, gravity performed negative work, subtracting its acceleration from that of the applied force - a free interaction with no cost of its own - resulting in all of the momentum input via the not-so-mutual acceleration residing on one mass only, and thus a net rise in momentum within the system of two interacting masses.

And by accumulating this momentum gain over successive cycles, we gain kinetic energy from the ever-growing discrepancy between internal and external reference frames..

So there's a cool little riddle - if it depends upon gravity performing negative work, is it still a "gravity wheel"? Not as commonly conceived, i think.. really, it's a gravity-assisted motion wheel..

[cloud camper]

Well, here’s hoping to success with this scheme. It should all be easily confirmed in WM2D.

Everyone gets excited about the energy producing side of their idea but of course rarely consider the energy consumed/required by the reset side.

I have an older gravity only simulation that I believe can be easily changed up to accommodate this concept.

In this sim the two weights start out physically together at 12:00 but then begin separation becoming fully separated at 6:00. No springs involved, all accomplished with levers. But I see no requirement to use springs if the same weight motions are produced.

If the same weight motions are produced, the energy required to produce them do not depend on the mechanism so I think we are OK here.

But the reset side is just an inverse of the producing side. So the reset side is now operating against gravity, with the 0G weight now being required to “catch up� to the 2G weight back at 12:00 to reset the process. Not just lifted but accelerated against gravity.

If what you’re proposing is correct, gravity is an integral part of the equation but is just a catalyst to the operation. The operation would then not work in space, correct?

This is all very similar to ideas I have had, which of course I have borrowed from others, but that one always requires at least two energy fields to extract energy, as this produces a differential pressure as it were. So we see that gravity only based systems can never work as there is no differential possible in a static unchanging field.

As you demonstrate, it is very important with this scheme to avoid use of any stator as use of a stator then provides a reaction mechanism to transfer force to the earth, which then invokes symmetry reactions that equalize all forces.

But a timing mechanism of some sort must be employed to create the necessary weight movement. The only type of timing mechanism I can imagine is something that still requires a gravity reference similar to the long control arms as used in MT75.

Everything turns with the wheel as required for a statorless system, but the gravity reference is still there. This is very concerning but I don’t see any other way.

Another major issue at least for me is again the underbalancing phenomena discussed earlier.

If we have say four mechanisms at right angles, the descending side will always be "lighter" and the ascending side "heavier" than normal, due to both the 0G and 2G weights disappearing temporarily as a mass balance against
the ascending side.

In addition on the ascending side, the 0G weight has lagged behind the 2G weight and must now be accelerated to catch up with the 2G weight, causing yet another countertorque.

Anyway, very intriguing and good luck!

[sleepy]

IF,and it's a big if,you could find a way to:
1.Cause the initial separating force at the exact speed needed.
2.Find a way to retract the weight back to it's starting position.
3.Have enough surplus momentum to complete a revolution.

then the second revolution would need your mech to be able to fire faster in order to apply any force to an already rotating wheel.The mech will always have to be able to fire faster than the speed of the rim plus the speed of gravity.That is easily accomplished from a dead stop.But will become impossible as the wheel gains speed.But it's all still wishful thinking,as I don't think the mechs currently exist that can do all of the things necessary to make this wheel work.

[Grimer]

This is all very similar to ideas I have had, which of course I have borrowed from others, but that one always requires at least two energy fields to extract energy, as this produces a differential pressure as it were. So we see that gravity only based systems can never work as there is no differential possible in a static unchanging field.

Quite so - and I've realized what the two energy fields are. :-)

NG and EG.

By analogy with the Stirling cycle for example, EG is the higher temperature source and NG is the lower temperature sink.

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

The following is copied from John's forum:

Thus there are two factors to be considered, the source and the sink. If the source and the sink have infinite capacity then the energy generation of the wheel will continue until the wheel wears out.

The question arises. Can we have a situation where Newtonian Gravity (NG) is the sink and not the source?

Well, there is another kind of much more powerful gravity, Ersatz Gravity (EG).
Can we use EG as the source and not the sink?

I think we can and I think I see how we can do it. A way that Bessler and bailywick1 stumbled on.

And for people whose hackles are raised by the term Ersatz Gravity, lets think of it as centrifugal/centripetal force.

Do these wear out?

Does this force decline as the years go by?

If not then it represents an inexhaustible source of energy.

I think this must be what Tesla discovered. How to tap EG.

[MrVibrating]

Evening all, just stopped off for a quick coffee break while at work, got another 400 miles ahead before i can even think about bed, let alone all this stuff...

..i'll attend to all your responses as soon as i'm able, and thank you all for your interest.

In the meantime.. if you think you've found a weakness, please check carefully again, and report back if you can answer it yourself..

..i think the above posts cover all the fundamental angles though, aside from frictional losses and an actual build design that can perform the interaction..

However this is now a full thermodynamic solution for mechanical over-unity. If you think you've spotted a weakness that i haven't already considered... you're probably mistaken! ;) Double-check that i haven't addressed your objection already?

I think a new thread is in order, with a view to deducing the optimal build design... something i hope everyone will be able to contribute something to... for now though, check back through the process and really try familiarise yourself with the key points..

Thanks again, talk later..

V

[cloud camper]

No worries Mr V - Wasn't trying to poop on your idea, just noting some acute issues.

Actually, I am quite intrigued with the possibilities. If the 2G weight can gain
enough energy to overcome all the countertorques, I will be thrilled.

Of course there will be countertorques, nothing really surprising there, the only question is can we generate enough energy to overcome them?

But simulation should tell the tale, not me.

[MrVibrating]

Well, here’s hoping to success with this scheme. It should all be easily confirmed in WM2D.

. Yes, it seems eminently sim-able - an interesting point for those who suspected it might be intrinsically impossible for a sim to demonstrate OU..

Everyone gets excited about the energy producing side of their idea but of course rarely consider the energy consumed/required by the reset side.

Oh mia culpa x 1000... 'look at what's in this hand, don't look at what's in that hand...' but the difference this time is that each hand is in a different inertial frame..

I have an older gravity only simulation that I believe can be easily changed up to accommodate this concept.

In this sim the two weights start out physically together at 12:00 but then begin separation becoming fully separated at 6:00. No springs involved, all accomplished with levers. But I see no requirement to use springs if the same weight motions are produced.

If the same weight motions are produced, the energy required to produce them do not depend on the mechanism so I think we are OK here.

Fantastic, absolutely - the key condition about those motions simply being that the force applied between them is a mutual acceleration against each other's inertia - ie., not applied via the intermediary of a stator... that force could however be commuted via an axis or even the main axis, provided it's just an angular force.

Bottom line is simple that it's an "inertial interaction" - a mutual acceleration & subsequent deceleration between two masses, with freedom to accelerate in the corresponding planes or axes. Thrust 'em apart with an asymmetric spread of momentum, then slam or yank 'em back together with a regular symmetrical momentum exchange, equalising to a net gain.

But the reset side is just an inverse of the producing side. So the reset side is now operating against gravity, with the 0G weight now being required to “catch up� to the 2G weight back at 12:00 to reset the process. Not just lifted but accelerated against gravity.

Well the intention is that the input side and output side are in different inertial frames.

The workload that must be accomplished by the reset side is in recompressing the spring that provided the inertial interaction... not in re-lifting the weight...

Yes, the weight has to be re-lifted, if it has to be dropped, but the crucial distinction here is that the system is not extracting any net work from gravity via the inertial interaction...

Let me stress that point very clearly again:

- in the first example of mutual vertical linear acceleration, G subtracts from the applied F for the upper mass, so its motion remains constant. If it's stationary, it remains so. If it's moving at speed x, it maintains it.. until it is yanked or collided with the accelerated mass below.

The lower mass has been thrust downwards, forcibly, and not simply fallen under its own gravity.

Half its KE and momentum comes from the applied vertical force.

The other half comes from GPE, which we obtain no matter how fast we descend, whether in free-fall or under additional force.

When the lower weight is re-lifted, we trade in only that half of its momentum and KE that came from the drop in the first place.

But it still has that much KE and momentum left over, from the applied force..


Because that applied force only resulted in a change in momentum of one sign, rather than equal opposite signs, the system already has a net rise in momentum at this stage.

In order to consolidate that gain, equalising it amongst the two inertias, there has to follow a regular elastic collision between them. Since the momentum being exchanged between them during this stage is of one sign only, they both end up with half of it, and we've accelerated their net reference frame. This net rise in momentum is our free KE multiplier.

So these interacting inertias have to be allowed to accumulate this net rise in momentum over successive cycles. No matter how much energy it costs, there is a threshold velocity beyond which we're OU...

So no net work is done by gravity in the first example of opposing linear accelerations, GPE in or out is not speed-dependent, and the output workload is actually an interaction between the accelerated momentum, and the PE store powering the mutual acceleration.. not the re-lift.

So you can view the GPE I/O, for both momentum and energy, as basically a sinusoidal plot, against which we overlay this inertial interaction, whose inputs are subject to this differentiation by gravity, but whose outputs are not.

Remember also that most of the input energy to the inertial interaction is conserved, minus friction & noise etc., and the masses are presumably orbiting the same axis, so getting them to collide and thus equalise their momentum is not exactly a further input load or hassle.. we'll need to keep topping it up, but also remember that inertia is speed-invariant, so the amount of energy we need to add to the spring or actuator is small, and constant, compared to the potential gains, which multiply up with rising velocity.

I'm kinda ranting again, so hope i;ve answered at least some of your concerns there.

There's doubltess holes and oversights in my thinking thus far, refinements to be made... but the basic principle seems incontrovertible - it seems like an effective skewing of N3's usual outcome, and if this can be consolidated via subsequent regular, symmetrical, inertial interactions then we have a free KE boost.

The real ingenuity now is going to be in simply recognising the potential significance of an effective N3 break and capitalising upon it.. it's one thing to spot a waterfall, another to design a water wheel..

but theoretically, here's the best candidate for a free-energy gradient i believe we currently have... so have at it, one and all.. :)

If what you’re proposing is correct, gravity is an integral part of the equation but is just a catalyst to the operation. The operation would then not work in space, correct?

In the first example of opposing linear vertical accelerations, no net work is done by gravity on that inertial interaction, nor in skewing the momentum result.

In the second example, when the lower mass is replaced by an angular inertia, gravity's net contribution is negative work - it's effectively decelerated the counter-momentum, but without equally and opposingly accelerating the applied momentum, since nothing fell during the acceleration.

At least, that's how things seem to me.. tear me down here by all means if you see BS.

This is all very similar to ideas I have had, which of course I have borrowed from others, but that one always requires at least two energy fields to extract energy, as this produces a differential pressure as it were. So we see that gravity only based systems can never work as there is no differential possible in a static unchanging field.[/i] Precisely.

Here, gravity can be time-variant, in that it can be used to skew the initial inertial acceleration, without necessarily interfering with the subsequent re-equalisation of that asymmetric momentum distribution.

As you demonstrate, it is very important with this scheme to avoid use of any stator as use of a stator then provides a reaction mechanism to transfer force to the earth, which then invokes symmetry reactions that equalize all forces.

Yes, exactly!

But a timing mechanism of some sort must be employed to create the necessary weight movement. The only type of timing mechanism I can imagine is something that still requires a gravity reference similar to the long control arms as used in MT75.

Quite possibly, i've no clear ideas myself for now..

Everything turns with the wheel as required for a statorless system, but the gravity reference is still there. This is very concerning but I don’t see any other way.

Again, GPE in/out is speed invariant.. think it over some more - what've i missed?

Another major issue at least for me is again the underbalancing phenomena discussed earlier.

Again, GPE in = GPE out. No net GPE converted to work by the inertial interaction.

If we have say four mechanisms at right angles, the descending side will always be "lighter" and the ascending side "heavier" than normal, due to both the 0G and 2G weights disappearing temporarily as a mass balance against
the ascending side.

In addition on the ascending side, the 0G weight has lagged behind the 2G weight and must now be accelerated to catch up with the 2G weight, causing yet another countertorque.[/quoted]

All that matters is that the inactive mechanisms on the ascending side are at rest with regards to the rest of the wheel being hammered with these net momentum gains... the whole inertial frame gradually accumulating those net gains, and so the internal and external frames diverging.

I can see more work is required in fleshing out and clarifying the mechanics of a full cycle, but for now i remain confident that the gradient is in principle, there and accessible..

Anyway, very intriguing and good luck!

Thanks for your thoughtful responses, much appreciated..

Work now, back later.

[MrVibrating]

IF,and it's a big if,you could find a way to:
1.Cause the initial separating force at the exact speed needed.

There is no 'exact speed' involved.. any vertical inertial interaction - any force at all between the two inertias, that they're free to move in response to, no matter how slight the impulse, results in an asymmetric distribution of momentum between those two inertias - there'll be more of one sign than the other, summing to an OU quantity of momentum.

Basically, it's physically impossible not to create free momentum from nowhere when performing a vertical inertial interaction in a gravity field..

However that gain only becomes readily apparent following a second, regular interaction between the two inertias, that isn't affected by gravity... such as when the masses are traveling horizontally relative to it; this equalises the momentum between them, literally combining to a non-zero sum, and thus a physical rise in momentum of both inertias (ie. the 'net system').

The reason i used a precise 2 G applied force was purely to clarify the principle, with a fully-asymmetric interaction; if only one inertia is accelerated by the applied force, then it's maximally-efficient.

But peak efficiency is unnecessary - any force magnitude will produce this same result, just to a weaker degree. Even a very small momentum gain per interaction would result in extremely impressive results - provided the gain was just marginally above frictional losses, the system would quickly accelerate, gaining more power as it gained speed.

For a rough and ready build, absolutely no empirical force measurement would even be required... this is a very plastic, tolerant and robust gain principle, with no need of exacting specifications.

2.Find a way to retract the weight back to it's starting position.

- you mean the lower mass in the example of two linear inertias? It costs the same to pick up as it puts out when it drops. This is not an attempt at a gravitational asymmetry. No other work is done by the falling of the weight, so all of its GPE can be directly converted to OB torque on the way down, and negative torque on the way back up. Gravity and rest mass are constant, so GPE-in = GPE-out.

Just to make this absolutely clear - both inertial and gravitational asymmetries are intrinsically impossible. Gravity and rest mass don't change over time, rest mass is basically inertia, so the same applies to inertial interactions; conservation of momentum is enforced by Newton's 3rd law, and, like mass constancy and temporal invariance of gravity, it is immutable and inviolable. All such interactions in either fields can only ever be energy-symmetrical, and from all possible reference frames, to boot.. There is definitely nothing you can ever do, in either field, that will even come close to over-unity.

Period.



Unless you just do both together, at the same time, in which case it's totally on.


Besides, if the lower inertia's angular instead then there doesn't need to be any linear or radial displacement, just angular - the upper mass only has to be subjected to a vertical force, of any magnitude, the other end of which is being applied to the wheel, and we get the same net result - the upper mass then only needs to collide with the wheel, thus the wheel imparts some of its gained momentum to it, so now both are rotating around together, stationary relative to one another.

Repeating that cycle, the system gains more speed as net momentum accumulates. But despite this rising RPM relative to us, internally, each cycle begins and ends under identical conditions - both inertias are stationary relative to one another (ie. moving at uniform velocity), and inertia is not speed-dependent, so the same applied input energy achieves the same net change in momentum each cycle, regardless of the fact that the KE value of that momentum in our static frame is, potentially, exponentially greater..

3.Have enough surplus momentum to complete a revolution.

We can make as much momentum as we want.

Please think this through carefully, it's extremely simple - if an inertial interaction raises one mass's momentum by +5 kg-m/s, and reduces another's by -5 kg-m/s, then our net change in momentum is zero.

If however, one was accelerated by 8 kg-m/s, and the other, decelerated by 2 kg-m/s, then our net change in momentum remains the same, only this time, that spread doesn't cancel, and the net system has gained 6 kg-m/s. This net system gain can then be 'actualised' ('consolidated' seems a better term) by a further, regular symmetrical momentum transfer (ie. a collision). So you, like, bang 'em together, innit. Now the momentum of each has been increased by 3 kg-m/s.

Keep going over that process till you're comfy with it. An effective N3 break generates free momentum from nowhere.

Nowhere classical, anyways.

(touch wood)

then the second revolution would need your mech to be able to fire faster in order to apply any force to an already rotating wheel.

Again, inertia is speed-invariant. It doesn't matter how fast a pair of bricks are flying though space together - an impulse applied between them will cause the same relative change in momentum, no matter how much or how little net momentum they already have relative to anything else..

And the mechs have to accelerate with the wheel. Everything has to accelerate together. Internally, however, every interaction begins under the same conditions, of relative stasis. This is the whole point of 'dragging your reaction mass along with you'... we're pulling ourselves up by our bootstraps, so boots + straps have to rise together..

Likewise, GPE is speed invariant. It doesn't matter how fast a mass is already traveling, its change in GPE and conversion to KE, over a given height, will remain constant, atmospheric drag notwithstanding.

The mech will always have to be able to fire faster than the speed of the rim plus the speed of gravity.That is easily accomplished from a dead stop.But will become impossible as the wheel gains speed.But it's all still wishful thinking,as I don't think the mechs currently exist that can do all of the things necessary to make this wheel work.

Again, if you've followed the previous points then you've got this already - the internal workload per cycle does not rise with net speed. Both gravitational and inertial interactions operate the same at all speeds. Indeed, it is this constancy of the internal parameters, relative to the 1/2mV^2 exponent of the external variables, that results in the net efficiency being a function of speed.

For our purposes here, 'inertia' = force over acceleration, so is not a function of speed per se.

[MrVibrating]

This is all very similar to ideas I have had, which of course I have borrowed from others, but that one always requires at least two energy fields to extract energy, as this produces a differential pressure as it were. So we see that gravity only based systems can never work as there is no differential possible in a static unchanging field.

Quite so - and I've realized what the two energy fields are. :-)

NG and EG.

By analogy with the Stirling cycle for example, EG is the higher temperature source and NG is the lower temperature sink.

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

The following is copied from John's forum:

Thus there are two factors to be considered, the source and the sink. If the source and the sink have infinite capacity then the energy generation of the wheel will continue until the wheel wears out.

The question arises. Can we have a situation where Newtonian Gravity (NG) is the sink and not the source?

Well, there is another kind of much more powerful gravity, Ersatz Gravity (EG).
Can we use EG as the source and not the sink?

I think we can and I think I see how we can do it. A way that Bessler and bailywick1 stumbled on.

And for people whose hackles are raised by the term Ersatz Gravity, lets think of it as centrifugal/centripetal force.

Do these wear out?

Does this force decline as the years go by?

If not then it represents an inexhaustible source of energy.

I think this must be what Tesla discovered. How to tap EG.

I think you're right, that CF could be substituted for gravity here.. but it seems slightly trickier to engineer... or even envisage, for that matter..

Still, if a clever-enough mechanism could be found to accommodate the principle, we'd have a system independent of earth entirely, potentially substantially more powerful, and maybe even reactionless propulsion too...

But why stop there - springs can also apply a static uniform force..?

Honestly, i'd need a very long soak in the bath to get my head around either prospect, for now i'm totally winging it on whatever i can remember from last week's bath time..

[MrVibrating]

No worries Mr V - Wasn't trying to poop on your idea, just noting some acute issues.

Actually, I am quite intrigued with the possibilities. If the 2G weight can gain
enough energy to overcome all the countertorques, I will be thrilled.

Of course there will be countertorques, nothing really surprising there, the only question is can we generate enough energy to overcome them?

But simulation should tell the tale, not me.

...i've been thinking that there should be simple tests i can do to prove the princple in step-wise fashion, even before a full mechanism can be figured out.

For instance, how about simply performing the interaction from a given coasting speed, instead of just from stationary? This would prove that the input energy remained constant even as speed rose...

So for example i could maybe demonstrate that a given pre-loaded spring had sufficient PE to cause a given net change in momentum, and also a gravitationally-induced asymmetric distribution of that momentum, when the system begins stationary... and then show that the latter two results are unchanged when the same test is repeated with varying amounts of starting velocity...


This would seem like a worthwhile step to tick off over the weekend.. and would pretty much prove that the free energy gradient is there, as the maths imply..

From thereon, the rest really would just be a matter of engineering..

[MrVibrating]

Another variation that springs to mind is to make the upper mass's motion more angular - suppose it's fixed to the end of a radial spoke, sharing the wheel's axis; sprung counter-torque can then be applied between them as it falls - and this should produce the same result, from a simpler mechanism..

[MrVibrating]

...and yet another - inner vs outer mechs, per MT 5 & 11 - coaxial mounts, same shaft, use a reactionless acceleration in the outer one synced with a second accelerating off of it in the inner one..

Of course, MT 5 & 11 (both primes) are non-workable gravity mills... yet even if their principle was viable, doubling-up the mechanism this way would add no net benefit - bigger masses moving greater heights could be accommodated within the same area, so if anything, this inner / outer dichotomy would be more detrimental than useful...





...unless it instead was applied to a two-stage reactionless acceleration... in which case, it totally would make a massive difference to the outcome. A reactionless acceleration riding on the back of another, either in series or parallel, would literally crank everything up a gear..

..and why just one gear.. wonder how many concentric stages might be viable..?

The thing is, we could aim to consolidate momentum gains to the wheel, incrementally over successive cycles.. so a kind of 'series' or sequential interaction... or we could simply thrust ahead in discrete bursts of parallel, simulataneous accelerations, culminating with a very high gain imparted very quickly to just one mass, which is then transferred to the wheel + net system via a collision..

So, there's a few options to play with already..

[Grimer]

Your mention of mass transfer between contra rotating wheels relates to a 2nd January 2017, post in the Flippin' Flywheels thread.

It reminds me of the Vesica Pisces I presented to that rancorous bunch of cynics on Not the Steorn Forum to the usual howls of derision at my posts.

To my surprise and delight on of more thoughtful members said
"Grimer is right. I have made a computer simulation and there is a small gain in energy."

I thought, if he is correct then PM has been achieved. The amount of energy is irrelevant. You can't be a little bit pregnant,

Here's a figure I've salvaged from the Photobucket debacle.



and here's another:



Having now seen that a 360° pendulum generates Precession Kinetic Energy (PKE) it may be possible to show how it can convert this to Rotation Kinetic Energy (RKE) by inertial mass transfer between wheels - well between compound pendulums to be exact.

I'll have a go. :-)