agor95 wrote:@MrVibrating
Best to focus on your thread. Some are reading and learning.
P.S. These roasted hot potatoes are being bounced around and wasting time.
Lets drop them and progress.
Regards
Well i really appreciate the goodwill mate and glad someone's getting something out of it.
But i'm desperate for corroboration of the maths and general principle. Yes, i know time and testing will tell, predictions will either stand or fall, it works or doesn't... but i think it
has to, but also has to be done safely.
For example we could mount a pair of Bessler wheels opposite one another to the inside walls of a horizontally-rotating drum, using centrifugal force instead of gravity.
This doesn't seem to cause any stray unbalanced forces. But of course, that's still a far cry from any assurance of safety.
Magnetic systems are equally viable, and can likewise be counter-balanced to isolate stray momenta.
But if the first thing i design is a crude 'gravity wheel' like JB's,
that's what's going wild on teh interwebz. That genie's out of the bottle, and no one is going to listen or care about where the
other 9.81 kg-m/s our input energy is buying is being induced.
Doing so to profit would be pure wickedness. Doing it to 'win' an internet forum would be just as twisted, but even more stupid.
Yet so far, nobody else here has even corroborated the stray force the theory predicts! So is this really the best place to be unleashing a force the planet's never been subjected to before? have i really exhausted all better options? Am i really doing it for the right reasons? If i think it can be done safely, don't i have a responsibility to ensure that? If no one else is willing or able to reproduce the predictions independently then must i bear sole responsibility in these considerations? If it
can be done safely, wouldn't i be stupid not to try and quit the shitty day job? If i turned up at a meeting with techies at a big corp or govt. office and sketched all this on a whiteboard, would i get a similar reception to here? A roomful of Silvertigers and Dwaynes? Would James Dyson just shake his head wearily and tell me i forgot to include a vortex?
Sorry i'm tired, ain't slept more than a few hours last few days as i've been too busy repeating myself all night on teh interwebz..
We need sensible discourse about safety, and that can't happen if i'm the only one who can see any risk, and nobody else will see the risk without following the maths and asking why the fixed-price cost of 96.23 J is precisely
twice the value of the 9.81 kg-m/s momentum it appears to buy, and then realising that it's
opposite is being transmitted to Earth via the negative GPE of the non-accelerating weight, which is a net upwards linear acceleration of 9.81 kg-m/s being applied to Earth with every single "reactionless" acceleration of the 9.81 kg-m/s raised internally..
Maybe only the linear-linear example is dangerous, and the angular-angular version exerts an equal opposite downforce via the axle and stand? So the inertia of the non-accelerating mass is being used to push the Earth back down, against its upwards attraction to it, both forces equal and opposite?
But in the linear-linear version, with both masses in free-fall when the force is applied between them, there's no avoiding pulling the Earth upwards against the inertia of the lower mass, and the resulting downwards momentum is converted to angular momentum and RKE instead of being transmitted to ground.
I need to sleep on it i guess..
A wanna pick back up where i left off - priming the system with conventionally-raised momentum and KE up to its unity threshold, and so punching straight thru to 125% OU in a single strike..
..and then collecting the resulting momentum gain. That would be good logical progress towards a mechanism that could be segmented around a wheel.
But also, only one step away from releasing something destructive. All it would need then is the CF / gravitational workload harvesting the RKE to power the internal counter-torque pulses. No "PE management" system is required since output can directly drive input from a standing start.
This must be the approach Bessler was using, since without it, a bump-start and PE management system is necessary. Below it's threshold unity energy speed, it would be acting as a non-dissipative brake, effectively destroying the energy you were trying to accelerate it with. Then, as it reached its unity threshold it would stop resisting acceleration and start to coast freely. Any faster and it would start to take off, accelerating hard until the inertial interactions could no longer maintain sync WRT gravity. Or else, catastrophic structural failure.
Not especially desirable properties either way. But also we have no records of such properties observed in JB's wheels.
The single-strike-to-OU approach
does seem much more consistent, with each inertial interaction producing an OU result, with multiple such interactions per cycle, outputting constant energy and momentum per interaction, but power simply scaling as a function of the rising velocity (more energy/time).
Anyway, only a couple of days to the weekend..