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

Post by MrVibrating »

k.waenga wrote:THE FIRST WEIGHT TO IMPACT, IS THE LAST IN LINE, AND THE LAST IS FIRST, SUCH IS THE GREAT PARADOX ... K. WAENGA.
..aha..! Now that's the way to do it, stamp your claim with fun cryptic puzzles, Bessler-style. All credit to you sir, with that one line you've exonerated and distinguished yourself.



I will not sleep easy til resolving your poser..

More riddles, that's just what i need!
User avatar
ME
Addict
Addict
Posts: 3512
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2005 6:37 pm
Location: Netherlands

re: Plying CF as pseudo-inertia to scam N3

Post by ME »

I don't think he's communicating with you, mrV.
MrVibrating wrote:More riddles, that's just what i need!
ok.

1. It's big, circular, continues until it breaks, and some peple believe it's true. What is it?

2. All caps capital sentences about capital discoveries, but not as captivating as it's written. What is it?

3. Suspected Nigerian prince exiled to New Zealand. Who is it?
Marchello E.
-- May the force lift you up. In case it doesn't, try something else.---
k.waenga
Enthusiast
Enthusiast
Posts: 53
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2017 3:37 am

Post by k.waenga »

MrVibrating wrote: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.. ;)
please forgive me i do not understand this type of terminology,i actually did practical work putting prototypes together, by this method alone i learnt how the wheel behaved in certain arrangements, its exactly like bessler said, its so simple its not worth the asking price ..regards k. waenga.
k.waenga
Enthusiast
Enthusiast
Posts: 53
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2017 3:37 am

Post by k.waenga »

MrVibrating wrote:
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!
it means different things to different people. it depends on how u interpret it ..have a good day .. k.waenga.
k.waenga
Enthusiast
Enthusiast
Posts: 53
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2017 3:37 am

Post by k.waenga »

TO ALL THOSE WHO FEEL THREATENED BY ME OR REGARD ME AS ANOTHER CRACKPOT, PLEASE TAKE A MOMENT AND CALM DOWN, IM NOT PART OF THE PROBLEM, BUT ACTUALLY A BIG PART OF THE SOLUTION, WE CAN WORK TOGETHER ON THIS, WE ARE ONES THAT KNOW ABOUT BESSLER AND HIS GREAT ACHIEVEMENT, LETS EDUCATE THE REST OF THE WORLD BY INFORMING THEM ABOUT THE POSSIBILITIES THAT LIE AHEAD ...GODSPEED ...K. WAENGA.
ovyyus
Addict
Addict
Posts: 6543
Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2003 2:41 am

re: Plying CF as pseudo-inertia to scam N3

Post by ovyyus »

HAHAHAHA
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 »

So anyway, i gone done simmed what i was on about earlier.. i'll try summarise the results succinctly:

- It is possible to levitate a mass in mid-air, against gravity, by thrusting against the inertia of a second mass being accelerated downwards.

So basically, it works as intended; we can exploit gravity to apply a reactionless acceleration between a pair of masses / inertias in this manner.

This is the take-home point; this appears to be a genuine N3 workaround...


For the nitty-gritty, here's how the dynamics unfold:

- The input energy required to levitate the mass is equal to its GPE over the height the lower mass has been displaced. In other words, equal to the energy it would generate if it had also fallen that distance.

- The vertical acceleration that must be applied between two 1 kg masses is equal to twice gravity in m/s^2

- If the upper mass is 1 kg, but the lower mass is increased to 2 kg, then the acceleration required is equal to 1.5x gravity.

- If the lower mass is increased to 10 kg, keeping the upper mass as 1 kg, then the acceleration required is 1.1x gravity.


In the first case, when both masses are 1 kg, and the acceleration required = 2 * 9.80665 m/s^2 = 19.6133 m/s^2, the upper mass has zero momentum, whilst the lower one has 19.6133 kg-m/s; half of which, 9.80665 kg-m/s, has been supplied by the output GPE of dropping the lower mass by 9.80665 meters...

..the other half of that momentum however - the other 9.80665 kg-m/s - has been bought via the applied acceleration between the two masses (ie. the input energy required by the scissorjack, if that's what you're using)...

And so we have apparent success, buying 9.80665 kg-m/s of reactionless momentum for 96.17 J, for a further investment of 96.17 Joules of GPE / GMH (9.80665 m/s^2 * 1 kg * 9.80665 meters = 96.17 J).

In short, total input energy is 192.340 J, half of which is GPE, the other half a reactionless linear acceleration.


Here's that 1:1 result simmed:

Image


..so the sim begins with gravity enabled, and everything in freefall. Gravity is accelerating everything downwards, at 9.80665 m/s^2.

Immediately, a (massless) linear actuator applies an acceleration of twice gravity - pushing the two masses apart, by a rate of (2 * 9.80665 = 19.6133 m/s).

Hence, the upper mass hovers stationary in mid-air, while the lower mass plummets at twice its free-fall speed.


Again, for clarity, the take-home point here is that only half of the momentum generated here corresponds to the GPE the lower mass has output. The other half is a reactionless acceleration...
Attachments
jackup.wm2d
(10.51 KiB) Downloaded 55 times
N3_Busted_1.gif
MrVibrating
Addict
Addict
Posts: 2875
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2010 12:19 am
Location: W3

Post by MrVibrating »

..So in this last system, it began stationary, as if it had been released to fall at the exact momentum the jack fired. Consequently, the upper mass levitated in mid-air, instead of accelerating downwards.

However, consider that if the system had begun with some initial falling velocity, rather than being stationary, then we would still have achieved the same reactionless acceleration - the same rise in momentum, for the same input energy applied via the jack - with the difference that the rate of fall of the upper mass would've flat-lined, to a constant speed, whilst that of the lower mass would have increased by the same degree as before.

Because we already had some ambient speed before firing the jack, this velocity adds onto the effective rise in momentum we've applied via the jack, and so the rise in KE of the lower mass is greater than the energy supplied to the jack.. but by an amount equal to the expended GPE.

So no energy gains there, yet, by my reckoning... i'll test that shortly tho.

However, the really interesting questions concern what happens when the lower, linear inertia is replaced by an angular inertia, of equal magnitude..!?

In such a scenario, there is no change in GPE! - an angular inertia only needs to spin up, not get lower in the gravity field..

So we'll have a vertical jack, as before, with a linear mass on top, as before, which should again hover stationary in mid-air as it is suspended against an angular inertia connected to the bottom end of the jack, which should duly spin up, gaining angular momentum and RKE..

..the objective will be a net rise in angular momentum, caused by a gravity-assisted reactionless acceleration. If that works, the only remaining hurdle will be repeating it from inside the accelerated reference frame, which hopefully should culminate in monster KE gains...
MrVibrating
Addict
Addict
Posts: 2875
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2010 12:19 am
Location: W3

Post by MrVibrating »

...LOL this is why i love this game... when the stars align for you it's all downhill.. form hypothesis, make predictions, test 'em, analyse results and make further predictions / revisions as appropriate.

It was clear that there had to be 'something you can do in a gravity field that defies N3'.. this is the only consistent theoretical explanation for mechanical over-unity, and why Bessler's wheels were all vertical, superficially resembling a conventional, if unequivocally futile, width-for-height scheme.

Racking my brains for weeks, months, for whatever it is that you can do in a gravity field to thwart Newton's 3rd, the present interaction just seemed like the only plausible one - a plain old inertial interaction between two masses, but whilst falling... playing it over and over as i go to sleep each night... pushing against one another, while falling... what was it about that, that might challenge N3?

It all finally began to fall into place a few weeks ago, when i noticed that much of Machinen Tractate could be loosely generalised as 'obsessively doodling angular-to-linear inertial interactions'... in just about every possible artistic permutation - the individual value of any of which might be spurious, but the almost manical exploration of the general theme, the sheer preponderance of angular-to-linear and back to angular conversions... Often seemingly serving no other purpose but that...

The thing is, all conventional angular to linear transmission systems are usually only applied for precisely that purpose, of transmission and motion conversion.

The fact that a piston & crank or rack & pinion also possess angular and linear inertias is kind of moot - they're made of mass, typically the denser kind for load-bearing reasons, but that's the sole purpose of the mechanism; to transmit or convert motion.

And yet, there's another side to such couplings, in terms of the inertial interaction between them.

And so i made this tentative connection that maybe angular-to-linear inertial interactions were the key to whatever it is we're supposed to be doing to break N3 symmetry using gravity, type stuff..

...and voila! It seems a path has opened up before us...

Again, for clarity, the gravity part of the cycle is a zero-sum deal - yes we have to drop weights and pick them up, and GPE out equals GPE in...

...but in addition to that rolling GPE interaction, we're also applying a 'conventional' inertial interaction, in the midst of it..

'Conventional' insofar that it's just two masses, or more to the point, two inertias, being accelerated against one another..

..but highly unconventional in that, due to the counter-acceleration of the net system by gravity, the net effect is that one of the masses remains objectively, certifiably and resolutely unmoved despite being used to raise momentum in the opposite mass..

And so after subtracting the energy and momentum that has been input and output by gravity (by the lower mass rising and falling by the height it does), we have that much momentum again remaining, solely from the inertial interaction between the two masses, but all of which resides solely on only one of those masses! Ie. if we were then to connect the two masses by attaching a string, say, then the momentum borne by the lower mass would be evenly distributed between it and the upper mass, and the net system momentum has risen!

..a second identical such cycle thus begins with an ambient coasting velocity.. the system already has some momentum, but neither angular nor linear inertias are speed-dependent, and so the input energy required for the second cycle is exactly the same as the first - from within the accelerated reference frame, precisely the same amount of work has been performed, and the same amount of momentum purchased for that input energy...

...thanks to gravity's downwards-acceleration countering the jack's upwards acceleration, the speed of the upper mass always remains constant whilst the jack's firing, no matter how fast the system gets (friction and air resistance notwithstanding).. from the jack's point of view, the upper mass is always effectively at rest, coasting.. as if it were stationary..

..externally however, from our reference frame, the energy being added to the lower inertia - be it linear, or angular - is equal to that input energy, plus half the MoI times the ambient velocity squared from the preceding interaction/s..

And this is where the monster gains crop up. Remember, a 1 kg-m/s rise in momentum has a nominal cost of half a Joule. But when already at an ambient velocity of say 10 m/s, that same 1 kg-m/s rise in momentum up to 11 m/s costs 10.5 J... and this is all due to N3. The faster a mass gets, relative to the other mass it's being accelerated against, the more force and / or displacement - ie., work ('work' / energy = force times displacement) required to achieve a given rise in momentum.

But when we instead have a reactionless rise in momentum, sans N3, we can just keep dragging our reaction mass along with us, and paying the minimum energy price for each successive acceleration, since, to all intents and purposes, the 'reaction mass' always begins stationary relative to the accelerated mass, and so effectively, every successive purchase of ever-rising momentum is subject to the same key conditions as the first... and so whatever the cost of an N3 break, that cost is speed-invariant... Ie. even if it's really, really expensive, buy enough of it and you'll eventually have more energy than you've spent. In this particular, idealised instance though, we're dealing with an absolute bare-minimum cost of momentum, as given by 1/2mV^2 or 1/2 MoI*RPM^2 and the strength of gravity - 9.8066 J per kg-m/s, each and every time..

That is, we bought 9.80665 kg-m/s of reactionless momentum for 96.17 J, and 96.17 Joules divided by 9.8066 kg-m/s = 9.8066 J per kg-m/s.

Being reactionless, this momentum cost is speed-invariant, so it always applies, regardless of rising system velocity. Unlike every other type of motor, which must torque against a stator, and thus whose rotors gain more velocity relative to those stators the more momentum they buy, our 'stator' is spinning up with us..

..and this is why Bessler would've insisted that "In a true PM, everything must go around together - there can be nothing involved in it which remains stationary upon the axle." The reason why all his wheels were not just vertical, but statorless... also accounting for their directionality.

Anyhoos, there's a path ahead here, something tangible that seems to add up in both theory and practice.

Gravitational interactions alone cannot possibly create energy or momentum, but inertial interactions, within a gravity field, might just do both, by effectively cancelling Newton's 3rd law.. It's unintuitive, but all implicit when you just examine the standard KE and RKE terms as metrics for the rising cost of momentum with velocity, and realise that the reason its cost evolves as the half-square of inertia times velocity is because of the practicalities of reaction mass, and ultimately, N3!
User avatar
Grimer
Addict
Addict
Posts: 5280
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2009 9:46 am
Location: Harrow, England
Contact:

Post by Grimer »

MrVibrating wrote: Snip ...

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 more so 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.. ;-)
"I also consider it inevitable that I will eventually discover it myself."

I congratulate you on your confidence, sir. :-)

Frankly, (pun intended) it gives me great encouragement to see that someone so obviously competent has such certainty that a solution will be reached.

I thought that Cloud would be the person most likely to succeed but now that he seems to have become bogged down in experimental work I feel you have taken pole position.

I also applaud you being open with your research and apologise for any posts of mine which may have been off topic.
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: 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

Good piece of analysis
[MP] Mobiles that perpetuate - external energy allowed
User avatar
eccentrically1
Addict
Addict
Posts: 3133
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2011 10:25 pm

Post by eccentrically1 »

After the actuator fires, the 1kg upper mass will have to dragged around like you say. That is the reaction, just delayed. The lower mass, or an angular replacement, will begin to lose momentum at the end of the actuator travel as the upper mass's reaction kicks in. Then, as always, the next question is how much does it cost to reset the actuator.
Looking forward to the results.
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 »

As I mentioned earlier in this thread,the energy it will cost to fire the jack will far outweigh any surplus energy gained in the reaction.I know that's a pesky detail,but it's not going away.It's like running up a series of falling rocks.The runner will stay still relative to the horizon but the rocks will accelerate a little as the runner steps on them.My legs are burning just thinking about it.
Trying to turn the spinning in my brain into something useful before moving on to the next life.
User avatar
ME
Addict
Addict
Posts: 3512
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2005 6:37 pm
Location: Netherlands

re: Plying CF as pseudo-inertia to scam N3

Post by ME »

..so the sim begins with gravity enabled, and everything in freefall. Gravity is accelerating everything downwards, at 9.80665 m/s^2.
Immediately, a (massless) linear actuator applies an acceleration of twice gravity - pushing the two masses apart, by a rate of (2 * 9.80665 = 19.6133 m/s).
Hence, the upper mass hovers stationary in mid-air, while the lower mass plummets at twice its free-fall speed.
So, your CoM (Center of Mass) still drops in freefall, plus your setup expands... Here your drop is free, while this accelerated expansion is not. It reacts against the CoM of the system, or against each others weight (depends on how you look at it).
The same when turning your setup 90 degrees: Your CoM still drops in freefall (and now your two masses too), plus your setup expands.
It may even happily rotate while it drops: same difference on the expansion.
So no energy gains there, yet, by my reckoning... i'll test that shortly tho.
I agree with sleepy, it will cost energy.

...unless the illusion of reactionless motion gets you somewhere, I think I don't understand what you're trying.
Marchello E.
-- May the force lift you up. In case it doesn't, try something else.---
MrVibrating
Addict
Addict
Posts: 2875
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2010 12:19 am
Location: W3

Post by MrVibrating »

Grimer wrote:
MrVibrating wrote: Snip ...

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 more so 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.. ;-)
"I also consider it inevitable that I will eventually discover it myself."

I congratulate you on your confidence, sir. :-)

Frankly, (pun intended) it gives me great encouragement to see that someone so obviously competent has such certainty that a solution will be reached.

I thought that Cloud would be the person most likely to succeed but now that he seems to have become bogged down in experimental work I feel you have taken pole position.

I also applaud you being open with your research and apologise for any posts of mine which may have been off topic.
Cheers mate, and thanks again for bringing this whole story to my attention in the first place, all those years ago..

Such confidence is of course the height of hubris, and would be clearly insane, were it not for the fact that we have such impeccable witnesses proving Bessler indeed 'had it'. Hence, trusting those sources, and thus knowing that it is possible, rather than merely speculating or just hoping, it's a matter of simple deduction to elucidate the symmetry break. The only parameters are gravity, inertia and motion, so the range of potential candidate interactions isn't just finite, but actually quite small.

Indeed, i seem to have found that CoM and CoE are immutable with regards to both gravitational and inertial interactions respectively, which means the only remaining possibility - and thus, by elimination, the near-certain probability - that the solution involves an inertial interaction within a gravitational interaction. So, not one or the other, but both, together, at the same time! Obvious, really.

And that's what we've found.

Similarly, the reason i knew that the phenomenon to be looking out for must be an effective N3 break is because there is no other form of symmetry break possible that could produce both excess momentum and energy - again, if we could somehow pull orbiting mass inwards against CF for free, we'd gain energy, but not momentum, yet Bessler's wheels were clearly offloading substantial momentum when driving attached loads. Plus we have all these other clues from Bessler himself, also suggesting, almost teasingly in places, that the exploit is an N3 break - the statorless prerequisite, and various graphical clues repeated in the Kassel engravings and Machinen Tractate.

Thus the inevitability of the current thesis, and any success it may bear.

The only barrier to guaranteed success is time spent, and obviously one's ability to spend that time thusly. Having a good appreciation of how CoE and CoM are enforced is obviously a major advantage, especially recognising that implicit within those terms are the conditions for any exceptions.. Then it's just a matter of working through the limited sets of viable permutations somewhat-methodically..

Basically, knowing that a solution is there, awaiting rediscovery, is half the success story in its own right, but also informs us that we're looking for something that requires statorless vertical rotation and is direction-dependent, as well as more subtle clues such as its spin-up and spin-down characteristics, and apparent load-matching properties etc..

So an effective N3 break from an inertial interaction in a gravity field is almost self-evidently the form of the solution.

And when you get right down to it, it's simply banging two bricks together, while falling... not exactly rocket science. Although at the same time, it is precisely that, just without all the chemistry..

So, dunno if this is really it or not, but let's see what everyone else thinks..
Post Reply