Plying CF as pseudo-inertia to scam N3

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

Plying CF as pseudo-inertia to scam N3

Post by MrVibrating »

- Suppose you have two identical 1 kg masses sitting stationary together in free space.

- Plus a spring, preloaded with 1 Joule of PE.

- Release the sprung PE between the masses, and each will be accelerated to 1 meter / sec in opposite directions, with 1/2 a Joule each.


So far we have a basic "inertial interaction" - each mass has been accelerated, not simply because of the input of energy alone, but also due to their inertia; each mass is accelerated against the other's resistance to acceleration.


Now reconsider the above interaction, with one small difference:

- one of the masses remains a normal 1 kg lump of matter

- the other is reduced to a 0.5 kg mass. However, this smaller mass is also subject to an additional force that resists acceleration; pseudo-inertia! So it is subjected to a 2 G centrifugal force. 1/2 a kg at 2x gravity = 1 kg @ 1 G!

As before, 1 joule of sprung PE is unloaded between them; the real inertia, vs the half-real, half-simulated-inertia: and we obtain the same result as before - a symmetric distribution of momentum and energy...

...but then the psuedo-inertia suddenly gets weaker, possibly disappearing altogether, as the CF substituting the missing mass with its own resistance to acceleration is reduced, by drawing an orbiting mass inwards..!

- now the 1/2 kg mass has insufficient momentum for its rest mass - at half the mass, it should be going twice as fast as the 1 kg mass..

- Finally bring the masses back together again, ready to repeat, and the net system momentum has risen by 0.5 kg-m/s!


In the implementation i'm considering, one mass is a linear inertia, such as a heavy mass mounted to a slot joint or rail, while the other is an angular inertia - so as before, a force is applied between these two inertias, and one slides sideways whilst the other is caused to rotate.. It's fundamentally the same interaction we began with, except now one of the two inertias is angular, instead of both being linear.

Final detail: the linear-sliding mass is mounted to the angular mass, ie. it's a radially-sliding mass on a wheel, and so also subject to CF / CP, on top of its linear inertia.

It seems to me that a third armature, of sorts, would be required to exert this angular-to-linear impulse of energy between our angular and linear inertias. Some kind of lever or crank assembly... This in turn commutes an input of energy - say, GPE or whatever - into a mutual force acting between the angular inertia, and the radial linear inertia mounted to it.

The faster it spins, the higher the CF, and so the greater the pseudo-inertia manifested by the sliding mass, and thus the resulting asymmetric distributions of rising momentum..


This is a tough one to think through..! Basically i'm delineating "inertia" into two distinct elements; a quantity that is accelerated, as well as a quantity that resists acceleration. So "inertia", as far as a standard elastic collision is concerned, is a composite inter-reaction of both these properties: something accelerated, something that resisted it. Then, by substituting an alternative, complimentary form of resistance to acceleration, i'm decoupling these components to try and cause an N3 symmetry break.

As the pseudo-inertia (CF) builds in magnitude with rising RPM, progressively more of each input impulse of energy is distributed increasingly asymmetrically, biased toward the angular inertia, ie. that of the wheel and net system, because net angular inertia (of the complete system) is constant per cycle, whereas CF is rising with speed, and so the "effective inertia" of the linear mass's constant rest mass plus rising CF is faking ever-greater resistance to these ongoing linear accelerations.. in short the sliding mass gets harder to slide, while the rotating mass and net system remains equally easy to accelerate.

Basic symmetry break would be between angular and linear inertias, i think.. no special role for gravity besides input / output currency.

More thinks on the matter if and when they arise..
User avatar
agor95
Addict
Addict
Posts: 7458
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 8:09 pm
Location: Earth Orbit
Contact:

re: Plying CF as pseudo-inertia to scam N3

Post by agor95 »

@MrVibrating

Interesting read and it is good to review the fundamental dynamics.
[MP] Mobiles that perpetuate - external energy allowed
k.waenga
Enthusiast
Enthusiast
Posts: 53
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2017 3:37 am

Post by k.waenga »

PLEASE READ MY WEBSITE AND SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS, originalbesslerwheel.com ..K.WAENGA.
k.waenga
Enthusiast
Enthusiast
Posts: 53
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2017 3:37 am

Post by k.waenga »

ALONG MY JOURNEY, A FEW DID FOLLOW, BUT THEN THE FEW FELL AWAY, UNTIL EVENTUALLY I FOUND THE SECRET ON MY OWN ... K.WAENGA.
k.waenga
Enthusiast
Enthusiast
Posts: 53
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2017 3:37 am

Post by k.waenga »

THE SPINNING WHEEL IS AN EXTRAORDINARY DISCOVERY, A MARVEL, A MILESTONE AND A WONDROUS ACHIEVEMENT ... K.WAENGA .. (BUILDING NEW WHEEL SOON)
MrVibrating
Addict
Addict
Posts: 2875
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2010 12:19 am
Location: W3

Post by MrVibrating »

Mr Waenga

I have read your website. It is elementary that when a reactionless impulse is applied to accelerate a mass, that mass now has more kinetic energy than was provided by the impulse.

Your site mentions a "gliding element", an "impulse" in the same direction as the former item, and finally a secret, third ingredient.

You also state that you think it unlikely that anyone will discover the solution from first principles...

However, as already noted, the solution is simply an effective violation of Newton's 3rd law. One single prime element. That is the only secret.

Whatever the three elements you are considering, clearly, their combined effect is an N3 violation.

Additionally, such a system needs a store of input and output loads, with which to cause the motion, and harvest the gain.

All of this can be deduced from first principles.

My method is to consider what variables must change to permit a gain, discarding any such parameters that cannot be changed.

Furthermore, it is clear to me that a gain or N3 break can only arise when a force involved is time-dependent, or time-variant - this is implicit in both basic mechanics (closed-loop trajectories through static fields yield zero net energy), as well as Noether's theorem.

So, i can see why you might be interested in my ideas. If you do have the solution, then i know the general form of solution (an N3 break) and why it works, if not the exact implementation.

If however you know the solution, but do not yet have a viable implementation, then we're on the same page.

So, we could collaborate... or just compete..? I do believe in Bessler, and moreso in Leibniz and Wolff, S'Gravesande and Karl etc., so i do know a solution is possible.. It is possible that you have found it, however i also consider it inevitable that i will eventually discover it myself. I know exactly what i'm looking for, where and how to look for it, as well as how to measure and calculate it. All of my research is shared here on this forum. If or when i succeed, i will give all due credit where ever it applies.

If you wish me to validate your concept, i'm happy to do so privately, with or without NDA.

If however you just want to show that you were thinking the same thing as me, only before me, i have no issue either way, like i say, all of my research path is public already, so good luck with your build and i wish you every success.

Simulation and maths is much quicker and cheaper though.. ;)
MrVibrating
Addict
Addict
Posts: 2875
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2010 12:19 am
Location: W3

re: Plying CF as pseudo-inertia to scam N3

Post by MrVibrating »

...moving swiftly on, another obvious candidate is gravity - if we accelerate a mass against the inertia of another mass that is also falling, we gain KE from GPE..

..example: consider a vertical scissorjack in freefall, with a mass attached to each end. As it begins to accelerate downwards, we activate it, causing it to expand.

If squeezed hard enough, the upwards acceleration of the upper mass will balance against the downwards acceleration due to gravity, with no net change in height. Meanwhile, the lower weight will be accelerated to twice its freefall speed, and so covering more height, and thus using more GPE that must subsequently be repaid. Obviously, no gain margin seems possible here.

But suppose instead that the lower mass is replaced by the inertia of a vertical wheel... An angular, instead of linear, inertia, which isn't itself falling...

So again, we fire the jack, hard enough that the upper mass undergoes no net change in height, while the rotor is spun up..

Because gravity is pulling the upper mass downwards while we're pushing it back up against the angular inertia of the wheel, we have to squeeze the jack harder, inputting more energy, to prevent the upper mass from changing height. Consequently, the extra PE which must be converted to RKE is equal to the GPE cost, had the upper weight been allowed to get lower. So, even though it didn't, we've still had to input that extra energy.


But what interests us is that the wheel has been spun up, accelerated, without accelerating a corresponding counter-momentum.... Thanks to the presence of gravity.

So, the potential advantage here may be worth a closer look.. It seems a promising start on a reactionless acceleration.

For example, consider how this result could be further manipulated if the MoI of the angular inertia is increasing during the interaction.. So the distribution of mass on the wheel is getting wider, whilst accelerating it, and keeping the height (and thus net change in GPE) of the linear mass constant..

Obviously, if MoI is increasing whilst this happens, then we don't need to squeeze the jack so hard to maintain the upper weight's height.

At the same time, tho, we're inputting less RKE...

However we'd also be inputting more angular momentum, sans counter-momentum...

Stuff to play with here, maybe..! The name of the game, I think, is momentum, rather than energy in the first instance. Generate an effective momentum asymmetry and energy gains inevitably follow..
sleepy
Aficionado
Aficionado
Posts: 509
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 6:53 pm
Location: earth

re: Plying CF as pseudo-inertia to scam N3

Post by sleepy »

I see what you're getting at.But you are not adding in the energy cost of firing the jack.I bet that would eat up more than your surplus acceleration of the wheel.That jack ain't movin' for free.
Trying to turn the spinning in my brain into something useful before moving on to the next life.
MrVibrating
Addict
Addict
Posts: 2875
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2010 12:19 am
Location: W3

Post by MrVibrating »

..oh not empirically, yet.

But just by dead reckoning:

First, consider an idealised stationary jack with a 1 kg mass on each end. If the jack accelerates each mass by 1 G over 1 meter in opposite directions, then we've given 9.81 J to each mass, and so our input energy to fire the jack is 2 * 9.81 J = 19.62 J.

- if we fire the jack at the precise moment that the whole jig is released into freefall, and, as anticipated, the 1 G upwards acceleration of the upper mass counter-acts the gravitational downwards acceleration to leave it hovering stationary momentarily, then the lower mass is accelerated downwards twice as fast, over twice its previous displacement, now 2 meters.

So the upper mass hasn't moved, relative to gravity, thus expending no energy, while the lower mass has fallen, expending 1 kg * 9.81 m/s * 2 meters = 19.62 J... in other words, the jack outputs the same energy in GPE that is required to fire it; we input a 19.62 J squeeze from a spring or whatever, which is converted to a 19.62 J rise in KE of the lower mass, but also a 19.62 J loss of GPE.

Is that right? Who knows, i'll run this through a sim later.

But storming on regardless, if we now consider replacing the lower mass with an angular inertia instead, then obviously only the point of contact between the jack and wheel gets lower, the angular inertia itself just rotates, so there is no change in GPE.

Hence if that angular inertia was nonetheless equivalent to the opposing 1 kg linear inertia, and we fire the jack as before without a gravity field, then we end up with 9.81 J of linear KE on one end of the jack, and 9.81 J of RKE on the other end. Net input energy as before is 2 * 9.81 = 19.62 J.

Now finally, re-run that with gravity enabled; as before, the upper mass momentarily hovers stationary, so no change in GPE, while at the 'lower' end the angular inertia simply spins up, so again, no change in GPE there...

...and so all we've spent is the same 19.62 J all along.. except in the final picture, it's resulted in a reactionless rise in momentum.

If we think about what could happen immediately after these events, once the jack reaches full extension, the upper mass must begin to actually descend, outputting GPE to RKE. The minimum distance it can fall, within the constraints mentioned, would be 1 meter, so it has a further output energy of 9.81 J, but which it will also require to re-lift it back to that height.

Therefore the net input energy for this initial cycle is 19.62 J. The further 9.81 J GPE just bounces back and forth, to RKE and back into GPE, a conserved, zero-sum, so all we need is 19.62 J stored on-board, in a spring or whatever, to fire the jack.

The real fun begins as we consider a second cycle...

Presuming the exploit works, and we gain momentum through a closed-loop cycle, at a cost of 19.62 J (and remember at this point, CoM / CoAM are not energy-dependent - net momentum of a closed system's supposed to be constant, no matter how much energy you throw at it), we begin the second cycle coasting, with some velocity and net momentum already...

...now, as we all know, gravity is effectively a 9.81 m/s acceleration... regardless of your current velocity already! That is, air-resistance notwithstanding, a mass in freefall will continue accelerating by 9.81 m/s until it hits the ground.

Similarly, inertia is not velocity-dependent. The linear inertia of the upper mass, and also the angular inertia of the lower mass, remain constant regardless of their ambient speed.

And so the cost of firing the jack a second time, while already in motion, is again, 19.62 J.

This time however, instead of braking the upper mass stationary, firing the jack simply prevents it from accelerating any further due to gravity.. which is all it ever did in the first cycle. So if it was orbiting at say 4 RPM the moment we begin the second firing of the jack, it will remain at that 4 RPM for the duration of the firing...

..however the angular inertia below will be accelerated a second time. Since the speed of the upper mass is not changing, neither is its momentum or KE, therefore all 19.62 J expended by the second firing of the jack is again sunk into RKE on the wheel.

And this is the make-or-break point - at this stage, at the close of the second cycle, we've input 2 * 19.62 = 39.24 J of energy.

So, from that consideration alone, we might expect that ideally, the system now has a maximum of 39.24 Joules of KE. Precisely no more or less than we loaded into its springs before we began...

..yet these impulses were commuted without applying counter-momentum! Normally, RKE = 1/2 * MoI * RPM^2 - meaning the energy cost of angular momentum increases the more you buy - doubling the momentum requires quadruple the energy...

..to put that in context here, presuming that the second cycle buys the same amount of angular momentum as the first cycle, for the same energy... we're already 4x OU. That is, if we'd had to purchase that second helping of momentum by torquing against a stator, then the pre-extant angular velocity of the rotor would've subtracted from the input force * angle required to achieve the same rise in angular momentum as the first cycle, so we'd've had to raise the torque or angle by a factor of four, at a cost of 4 * 19.62 J = 78.48 Joules, in order to buy as much momentum as we bought in the first cycle! The energy gain arises purely from being able to raise angular momentum by torquing against something that does not decelerate or change momentum in the opposite direction.

So long as the rate of fall or rotation of the upper mass remains constant whilst the jack is fired, we have a unidirectional torque and consequent rise in net angular momentum.. a self-perpetuating condition.. and can thus drag our reaction mass along with us, and keep torquing against something that is relatively stationary to, ie. inside, the rotating system.


TL;DR

If this pans out, then a two-stage reactionless angular acceleration should yield 4x OU. So for instance if we drop a weight to load the spring that fires the jack, after two such drops we should have sufficient RKE to perform four corresponding lifts, for a net 2x OU.

The potential efficiency however is limited only by whatever the practical constraints on speed (such as air resistance / friction / terminal velocity) - because RKE scales as the half-square of RPM, the more 'stages' - ie. the more successive reactionless accelerations we can apply, and thus the higher the current RPM when the jack fires, the greater the margin of excess RKE. Firing the jack only ever costs the same 19.62 J, regardless of current RPM, so after say 10 successive reactionless accelerations, we're at 100x over-unity, or 19.62 J input for a 1.962 kJ rise in RKE during the tenth such cycle.

Basically, it's potentially massively OU. Far beyond measurement error, and capable of brushing off very high friction, with no need for exacting tolerances, and no question about its veracity when witnessed.

It all hinges purely on the viability - or not - of applying reactionless torques; ie. without incurring equal opposing counter-momenta. So long as firing the jack applies a unidirectional change in momentum, whilst resetting it does not undo that change, gained momentum = gained KE. We can basically treat the ever-accelerating reference frame of our input energy aboard the wheel as stationary, regardless of how fast it's actually spinning, and so, to make a simple linear-KE analogy, accelerate say 1 kg to 10 m/s, energy value = 50 J, by making 10 discrete 1 m/s accelerations at a constant cost of 1/2 a Joule each, so a net input energy of 10 * 0.5 J = 5 J, for that 50 J rise in actual KE, hence 10x over-unity.




Next, i suppose i should start simming all this. I guess first step will be as described above - do the scissorjack tests with an equal mass on each end, firing it without gravity, then repeating with gravity enabled... and then change out the lower mass for an angular inertia instead, and repeat the with / without gravity measurements.

Finally, if those are all positive, i'll try perform a cycle after the system has already been spun up to a given RPM, at which point we should expect to see a marked divergence between the energy expended on-board vs the objective rise in RKE relative to earth.

Unless i've drastically misconceived something, like i absolutely always have every other time, this could be an interesting set of tests..
k.waenga
Enthusiast
Enthusiast
Posts: 53
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2017 3:37 am

Post by k.waenga »

( NGA MANA KI TE TANGATA ) ALL POWER TO THE PEOPLE !! ... K. WAENGA.
MrVibrating
Addict
Addict
Posts: 2875
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2010 12:19 am
Location: W3

Post by MrVibrating »

For anyone who managed to follow that (please try, this is really exciting territory!), i previously mentioned another possible factor that could weigh-in here:

- variable MoI..!

So for example, suppose the angular inertia accelerated by the lower end of the jack is also an increasing MoI. For instance, we could have a pair of balanced opposed weights on either side of the axis, connected by a radial spring applying centripetal force; firing the jack applies torque, accelerating the wheel, which in response grows wider under centrifugal force, loading PE into the spring as the weights slide outwards radially..

..so the upper weight is being thrust upwards in a straight line, at the same rate of acceleration that it is falling under gravity, and so it hovers, balanced in mid-air as the jack expands beneath it..


..meanwhile below, the wheel spins up, causing the radial masses to extend outwards, stretching the spring..

..and so the MoI is rising - the rotor's resistance to the angular acceleration being applied is increasing, as the acceleration is being applied..

This final detail is the "variable MoI flywheel" i've played with previously - it's basically a flywheel that gets wider instead of faster as more energy is stored in it.

This could have a variety of interesting effects here...

For a start, imagine it without the spring for a moment - so when torque is applied, the masses just fly outwards radially, on infinitely-long spokes...

...hence no actual rotation would occur, ie. no angular displacement of the lower-end of the jack, which would mean that firing it would instead raise the upper weight..

..the cost of firing the jack would then be equal to the rise in GPE of the upper weight, plus the rise in KE of the radially-sliding masses.

Now reconsider it again with the spring in-place;

- suppose the spring allows the mass radius, and thus MoI, to double

- in order to avoid lifting the upper mass and thus inputting GPE, the jack will have to fire more slowly, to allow time for the rising angular inertia below to accelerate

- ideally the radially-sliding masses will reach double their starting radius, just as the jack reaches full vertical extension. So the upper mass hovered in-place, the lower rotor spun up, and its radius and thus MoI doubled, all in one smooth synchronised stroke.

- since there's no change in height of the mass, we've spent nothing on GPE. All of our input energy again went to the wheel. But only a quarter of it went to RKE - the other 75% was converted to PE in the spring.

- because of this, the speed difference between the upper weight and rotor is half what it would've been with a fixed MoI.

- narrowing the momentum difference between these two key inertias at this stage provides a window of opportunity to equalise their velocity, ie. for the upper weight atop the jack to catch up with the wheel as the jack reaches maximum extension.

- now, with them turning again together at the same speed, the 75% of prior input energy stored in the springs is released, so they bounce back, pulling the radial masses back in, halving the MoI and so doubling the speed, with a reactionless torque that is being applied to the entire system, ie. the linear masses included... the net system spinning up together...

...basically, extend MoI while extending the jack, and then retract MoI while retracting the jack, this MoI variation can be entirely passive, relying only on the resonant frequency of the spring and radially-sliding masses, being flung outwards under CF whilst presenting a rising MoI to lower end of the jack, and then, as the spring reaches maximum stretch, bouncing back inwards, and so causing an inertial torque (per ice-skater effect) applied to the net system of wheel plus weights, just as the scissorjack reaches full lock..

Tricky to envisage, but a sim will speak a thousand words..


All i'll need is basically three elements:

- a small mass, to act as the upper weight / inertia atop the scissorjack

- the scissorjack itself, 3 to 5 links long (ie. extending symmetrically, with an equal number of scissor link sections either side of the central fixed scissor link, so with an equal displacement at each end about that center)

- a variable-MoI flywheel (comprised of a spring, and two opposing masses on radial slots)

..hmmm.. i guess i could call the first a "gliding element", the second an "impulse element" and keep the third as a Super-Special Top Secret â„¢ that you'll all never guess... wow where ever do i get such original inspirations? On a roll tonight!



© 2017 MrVibrating, all rights reserved, i thought of it first, me, etc.!
k.waenga
Enthusiast
Enthusiast
Posts: 53
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2017 3:37 am

Post by k.waenga »

IF A PICKPOCKET MEETS ANOTHER PERSON, HE WILL SEE ONLY THERE POCKETS .. K. WAENGA.
MrVibrating
Addict
Addict
Posts: 2875
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2010 12:19 am
Location: W3

Post by MrVibrating »

k.waenga wrote:( NGA MANA KI TE TANGATA ) ALL POWER TO THE PEOPLE !! ... K. WAENGA.
Yes!

Regardless of whether or not it's changing Earth's momentum in any plane or axis!

Irrespective of any even-more-Hollywood cataclysms involving arcane quantum vacuum paroxysms.

Just release it to the masses on teh interwebz, 'tis the nobler thing..

Yes, this free-energy panacea will be totally different to every single one of its predecessors, from nuclear to oil, coal and wood; not just too cheap to meter, but genuinely, certifiably and categorically free, and risk-free - with absolutely no invoice, deficit or fallout anywhere whatsoever, with any luck.

Honestly though, i think most of us feel the same way - that this is the way it's meant to be. Its rediscovery will be as much 'of our time' as teh interwebz that enabled our efforts in the first place, and the moral imperative to full public disclosure is tempered only by the potential socio-economic disorder that might result (FWIW it's a criminal offence in the UK to publish information deemed damaging to national security interests, which specifically includes economic interests, not to mention potentially decisive or disruptive technological advances)..

The power of citizen science however is something i think we could all drink to..
k.waenga
Enthusiast
Enthusiast
Posts: 53
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2017 3:37 am

Post by k.waenga »

THE FIRST WEIGHT TO IMPACT, IS THE LAST IN LINE, AND THE LAST IS FIRST, SUCH IS THE GREAT PARADOX ... K. WAENGA.
MrVibrating
Addict
Addict
Posts: 2875
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2010 12:19 am
Location: W3

Post by MrVibrating »

k.waenga wrote:IF A PICKPOCKET MEETS ANOTHER PERSON, HE WILL SEE ONLY THERE POCKETS .. K. WAENGA.
...said the talking pocket. Sorry, i've read your site, understood precisely what you meant and totally stolen your thoughts (assuming you're not one step ahead of me and thinking fake thoughts, after stealing mine).

Frankly, it's your own fault for coming onto a research-sharing forum just to gloat over your impending super-secret success..

But hey Bessler had the same issues so maybe that kinda validates your motivations..

If i am treading on your toes, now's probably the time to chime in and "put up, or..."

Otherwise, as i've said, most of my research notes are recorded right here, going back a decade.. and following an inexorable trajectory from my earliest hypotheses to the present issues.

The sims i mention above, i can run in a weekend. You're building a physical model, with months to go, just to complete your current design - let alone any redesigns, sourcing new parts / materials etc. You've said you're aiming for next year. I'm aiming for this year... and so is John Collins..

Tick-tock tick-tock, may the best man win!
Post Reply