Plying CF as pseudo-inertia to scam N3

[John Collins]

Just because I don’t subscribe to your yo-yo theory doesn’t make me a lost cause Grimer!

JC

[Grimer]

LOL. I'm afraid it does, Collins. ;-)

[John Collins]

Why?

JC

[ovyyus]

Another coattail tragic :D

[ME]

And Grimer, did you also check the SI units of e²/p ? Does that match another theory?

[MrVibrating]

Just noted another obvious tick-box:

- I'd previously noted that the basic form of MT 137 is consistent with four 90° rotations of the AP wheel geometry

- In light of this indication that the AP wheel would've had significance in representing "3 quarters", in the same way, MT 137 simply represents 12 quarters.

12 quarters equals 3, of course, and 12 * 25% equals 300% OU.

Since JC and perhaps others have been considering right-angled armatures (i've investigated the same items myself at the very beginning of this search 4 years ago), i should probably stress that these "quarters" now appear to be symbolic of this 25% accumulator.


This 25% would've been important to Bessler because it's a kind of element of nature that he has mechanically distilled and separated from its opposing 'evil' twin. It's a kind of refined "quantum" of motion, if you will..

Almost like trapping a fairy in a jam jar..

He's entrained and entrapped the vis viva itself.

And the thing it has been separated from - it's equal opposing counterpart - is loss. "Friction". It has been isolated from its lowly tendencies.

So these "quantums of motion" - these reactionless torques / single-signed momentum rises - appear to be elements in the true sense of the word:

- they're packaged in discrete, geometrically-determined sizes (equal to full-cancellation of counter-momentum)

- they're the 'positive' component of motion, separated from its 'negative' counterpart

- this presumably has spiritual / religious implications for JB's cosmogony

I think i'm going to have to re-read all of JC's books, or at least scan them again searching for corresponding references which might now be interpreted in new light.

The general concept of 'quarters', it seems, would've been something of a hot potato for him..

[MrVibrating]

Regarding the graph plot previously posted, it just maps the linear vs square functions using an online web tool, but i wanted to provide a visual reference for the lay of the land (instead of just trying to describe the integrals in english. A picture speaks a thousand words here).

You can see what i mean by "2-stroke" vs "4-stroke" implementations however - we could design a machine that operates at a fixed point on the curves, using the straight-to-OU shortcut i've described, or else one that automatically climbs up to its max speed after a bump-start up through its unity threshold.

Also note however that progress along the horizontal axis doesn't necessarily represent velocity per se, so much as the number of preceding interactions that have elapsed. For example we could in principle reach any arbitrary efficiency at any arbitrary speed, such as 1600% OU at 1 RPM constant speed, using 64 of the '4-stroke' mechanisms around a full 360° system rotation.


If this pans out (soz, i have to keep saying that for now), a cool challenge would be single-mech '2-stroke' racers, to see who can design the fastest single mechanism able to maintain sync with respect to gravity. So just one full interaction per full revolution, bump-started over its unity RPM, and off it goes.. either reaching a high stable RPM, or else ripping itself apart in the attempt.. Science abuse, maybe, but my kind of sport..

[MrVibrating]

And Grimer, did you also check the SI units of e²/p ? Does that match another theory?

A key detail in this is the numerical base-rate equality between the respective values of e^2 and P (a vector here, not scalar), as a function of F/m.

It is true, we could assign any arbitrary base-rate, without altering the respective curve shapes or thus their inevitable intersection, however this would transpose the vertical position of the input line integral relative to the KE line.

For example we could assume any initial ratio, such as 1:6, and extrapolate the evolution from there. However this would raise the unity intersection accordingly, and we would lose this defining /4 axis.

The 9.81 value of e^2 and P on both sides is obviously not trivial, being this specific constant of F/m.

Hence any expression reliant on e^2 / P has to first define their equality in terms of F/m.

Using 'A' for 'acceleration', the most meaningful expression would thus be equivalent to A^2 J / A kg-m/s.

However the concepts of "acceleration squared times Joules" or "acceleration times kg-m/s" seem unwieldy... hence why i just define "N" for "number" as F/m and use that.

I've had absolutely zero constructive feedback on any of this remember so i'm just doing as best i can, trying to find the minimal accurate expression.

Doubltess there'll be more succinct ways of formalising ((A^2 J) / (A kg-m/s)), but it's accurate for now. (e^2 / P) only conveys the fields and dimensions, and not their numerical equality or its F/m derivation.

[MrVibrating]

...just for a laugh then, here, via the same logic that brought you the AP wheel motif, is what the 'anti AP wheel' might look like:



..so in matters of 'squaring the circle', three 'quarters' are bad, representing irreversible loss and non-conservation... non-salvation of the vis viva..

..but five 'quarters' are good... representing an 'invigoration' of pure vis viva.

So if the AP wheel is a kind of elemental or divine seal upon a preceding curse, one step below the worldy plane, then the "five quarters" wheel is one step above, and so a kind of charm or 'positive' mandala..

So you can keep that - hopefully it might bring us some luck.. Not sure how you'd shade it in tho..

[MrVibrating]

And Grimer, did you also check the SI units of e²/p ? Does that match another theory?

A key detail in this is the numerical base-rate equality between the respective values of e^2 and P (a vector here, not scalar), as a function of F/m.

It is true, we could assign any arbitrary base-rate, without altering the respective curve shapes or thus their inevitable intersection, however this would transpose the vertical position of the input line integral relative to the KE line.

For example we could assume any initial ratio, such as 1:6, and extrapolate the evolution from there. However this would raise the unity intersection accordingly, and we would lose this defining /4 axis.

The 9.81 value of e^2 and P on both sides is obviously not trivial, being this specific constant of F/m.

Hence any expression reliant on e^2 / P has to first define their equality in terms of F/m.

Using 'A' for 'acceleration', the most meaningful expression would thus be equivalent to A^2 J / A kg-m/s.

However the concepts of "acceleration squared times Joules" or "acceleration times kg-m/s" seem unwieldy... hence why i just define "N" for "number" as F/m and use that.

I've had absolutely zero constructive feedback on any of this remember so i'm just doing as best i can, trying to find the minimal accurate expression.

Doubltess there'll be more succinct ways of formalising ((A^2 J) / (A kg-m/s)), but it's accurate for now. (e^2 / P) only conveys the fields and dimensions, and not their numerical equality or its F/m derivation.

..further to this, A^2 / A is just too misleading - acceleration of what, with respect to what? Acceleration per se?

"Acceleration squared times energy per acceleration times momentum" is just too discombobulating, and needlessly so.

The only logical thing to do is assign some proxy parameter predefined from F/m, exactly as i've done. If anyone can come up with anything better, please share your thoughts..?

Not that this issue's particularly important at this stage - so long as we know what we mean, we can just dub it Bessler's Constant. That's what i'm doing anyway.

[MrVibrating]

...here's what appears to be one of these 'convergently simple' motions i suggested would become obvious:




...so the significant details here would be:

- GPE-in = GPE-out

- torque of only one sign is applied between the two angular inertias

- gravity only interferes in the resulting momentum distribution during the acceleration phase, not the deceleration phase

..at least if i'm looking at it right, anyway.

So yeah... dunno if this is truly an optimum trajectory, will need to take a close look at the momentum distributions obviously.

Again, just kicking ideas about..

Been rifling thru MT again looking for inspirations... MT 15, 24, 25 etc. still look potentially promising.

A key benefit with CF workloads as a means of harvesting an RKE gain, it seems to me, is that these radial components can have arbitrarily-high radii relative to the interacting inertias, being much further out from the center of rotation, and so with access to high forces even at low velocity.

Anyway, jumping the gun a bit there, gonna go check out how the momentum might flow in this kinda scheme..

[sleepy]

Mr.V and all believers in this concept,
I'm going to stop sticking my 2 cents worth into this thread.I strongly feel that there are too many deal-breakers in the logic flow of this concept that are being glossed over.In other words,it won't work.That being said,it's still a great new idea and shows real original thinking.I wish you luck in building this.If it succeeds,I will be among the first to congratulate you.If it fails,I hope you will continue to think in new ways and post your popular train of thought ramblings for us to see.Happy Holidays to all! (whatever ones you choose to celebrate).

[MrVibrating]

..same thing again, doubled up:

[MrVibrating]

Mr.V and all believers in this concept,
I'm going to stop sticking my 2 cents worth into this thread.I strongly feel that there are too many deal-breakers in the logic flow of this concept that are being glossed over.In other words,it won't work.That being said,it's still a great new idea and shows real original thinking.I wish you luck in building this.If it succeeds,I will be among the first to congratulate you.If it fails,I hope you will continue to think in new ways and post your popular train of thought ramblings for us to see.Happy Holidays to all! (whatever ones you choose to celebrate).

Not sure there's much of an audience to address mate but cheers for the nod.

Given that you've not been able to point out a single deal-breaker, let alone "many", i totally accept that it seems like a hopelessly-optimistic outcome from a mere momentum management scheme..

As far as i can tell it's totally on tho.. There simply cannot be another symmetry break in classical mechanics, so this is the only possible solution. And it's vastly more powerful than a gravitational asymmetry could be, even if one were possible, which it isn't.

Not after disciples tho, either one understands the described gain principle, or not. If anyone does - help a guy out cos i ain't got a sorry clue what i'm doing? Otherwise, it's free to spectate..

[cloud camper]

..same thing again, doubled up:

MT 6 deja vu all over again!

As soon as the arm breaks free at the hub it is no longer balancing the ascending mechanism.

The wheel instantly reverses direction.

Dealbreaker.

I can't believe you are not smart enough to catch that!

How many times does this need to be pointed out until it registers?

The argument is always GPE in = GPE out so we can just ignore that issue.

But MT6 is also GPE in = GPE out but has a fatal flaw anyway!

When the wheel reverses direction this is not a trivial issue to be ignored.