The significance of kiiking - the most probable solution to
Moderator: scott
The significance of kiiking - the most probable solution to
.
Last edited by silent on Mon Oct 04, 2021 6:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
MrVibrating
- Addict
- Posts: 2879
- Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2010 12:19 am
- Location: W3
If i may elaborate on why kiiking is so damn intriguing:
• whereas the raising (or reduction) of any momentum anywhere usually depends upon a force applied between an inertia versus some other inertia - and so preserving the products of inertia and velocity in each direction, keeping the system's net momentum constant or nil - kiiking sources or sinks momentum directly to and from gravity itself, without having to apply a force against some other inertia... in short, gravity is both an effective source, and sink, for classical momentum; hence kiiking can and does generate reactionless angular momentum from gravity. No counter-torque's applied back to the swing axis. Kiiking is, in short, a form of effective N3 violation - we can use it to gain momentum in one direction without counter-accelerating some other inertia in the opposite direction. Suffice to say, this amounts to a tantalising wildcard in its own right..
• consider a given GPE - could be whatever you like; let's call it 1 kg at 1 meter height at 1 G. This gives it a GPE - and a KE when dropped over that height - of 9.81 J.
This of course perfectly agrees with gravity's function and value as an ambient time-rate-of-change of momentum of 9.81 kg-m/s per kg of gravitating mass. However, we can prove the fine detail of that point by adding additional, non-gravitating inertia to the drop; for example, we could place the weight on the edge of a vertical wheel, which itself remains balanced but which nonetheless still has inertia; now when the weight drops, its downwards acceleration is hindered by having to lug around the angular inertia of the wheel it's attached to, so it drops more slowly, increasing its time-spent-gravitating over the 1 meter drop height; however upon toting up all of the system momentum - the weight's, plus the wheel's, it again comes in at 9.81 kg-m/s per kg of actual weight... regardless of the ratio of gravitating to non-gravitating mass!
We could instead spool the weight off a reel that spins up a flywheel, or use a pulley to convert its vertical motion into a horizontal force dragging another mass sideways.. but however we arrange the distributions of gravitating to non-gravitating mass, the total system change in momentum over that 1 meter drop height is absolutely constant.
For 1 kg over 1 meter at 1 g, the total change in system momentum comes in at 4.43 kg-m/s. The ratio of non-gravitating mass could be anything from zero to infinity; regardless, the total change in system momentum for a 1 kg weight changing height by 1 meter is 4.43 kg-m/s. The ratio of non-gravitating mass could be anything, having no effect upon that momentum yield, which remains purely a function of how much mass has changed how much height.
Yet, there is one, single thing we can do to alter that outcome - apply an inertial torque, caused by an MoI change, whilst the weight's rising or falling! This applies reactionless torques, speeding up or slowing down the ascent or descent as we please!
And this is where things get fascinating; by changing the default momentum yield this way, gaining or losing more or less than 4.43 kg-m/s for 1 kg of actual weight over 1 meter of height, we've broken the basic symmetry of CoM, which is spatial, not temporal: it's the reasoning behind the concept of the 'zero momentum frame'...
The zero momentum frame is the frame of reference between two or more interacting inertias from which vantage the net system position remains stationary. Kiiking accelerates the zero momentum frame!
Gaining momentum from gravity this way is not so 'reactionless' after all; CoM depends upon the 'momentum yield' for 1 kg cycling over 1 meter's height at 1 G to be a fat zero: whatever gravity's value, and thus the momentum yield in either direction, CoM depends upon it being the same yield in each direction, so 4.43 kg-m/s up, as down, for example..
..whereas, if we instead collect, say, 5 kg-m/s on the way down, and only repay 4 kg-m/s on the way back up - it's still 1 kg moving 1 meter relative, only now we've also caused a 1 kg-m/s displacement of the zero-momentum frame, thus we've effectively accelerated the net system / changed the net system momentum, where 'net system' includes the Earth..
In short, when kiikers no longer oscillate but perform full 360° loops, progressively gaining angular momentum in one direction, they're gaining momentum in an otherwise closed system of interacting masses purely via the internal expenditure of work - so rendering an effective violation of both N1 and N3.
Only gravity, as a 'force', makes this possible; it doesn't work the same way with any other fundamental force. More succinctly, it's due to the fact that gravity isn't really a force at all, since it already violates N2, per Galileo's principle (rock and feather fall at same rate in vacuum, ie. their acceleration is not dependent upon their mass, per F=mA / A=F/m), so in summary, kiiking depends upon the apparent flouting of all three laws of motion!
The main take-home, for us, is that first point; generating momentum always involves generating equal opposing counter-momentum. No torque without counter-torque.. Kiiking, first and foremost, turns that convention on its head and instead treats the gravity field we're immersed in as a potential source and sink for infinite unilateral momentum.. gravity becomes a bottomless reservoir of momentum that obviates the usual requirement to propel some other mass backwards in opposition to, and balance of, a desired momentum change.
And that's the prospective hot ticket, here - a potential workaround to the usual constraints of N3 in causing the PE cost of momentum to square with velocity along with its KE value. "OU" really refers to UU input energy, ie., momentum bought on the cheap, for less than its change in KE value.
I recommend everyone tries a few of these exercises for themselves - check the momentum yield for a given weight vs height, then try changing the proportion of non-gravitating mass; note the inflexibility of the resulting momentum yield (constant regardless), and then try chucking the ice-skater effect into the mix, speeding up or slowing down the lift or drop times with inertial torques. Now note how the momentum yield changes in direct proportion to the up vs down time differential. All we're doing is swinging, as we've done intuitively and reflexively since childhood. All we're doing is applying MoI variations to cause reactionless accelerations / decelerations (which themselves depend upon conserving net momentum), thus shortening or lengthening the respective lift vs drop times, and so exchanging more or less momentum with gravity over the respective inbound / outbound legs of the GPE cycle.
Breaking all three laws of motion is literally kids' stuff!
I suspect the scissorjacks are one of Bessler's (pre-Rosetta stone) 'hieroglyphs', intended to denote something important but more abstract:
• Bessler demonstrates a good understanding of the conservative nature of leverage; what we'd call the 'law of levers', essentially, that the product of force and displacement is a conserved quantity - they're thus covariant properties, embodied in literal form by the scissorjacks.
Force times displacement is also of course our modern definition of "work" and "energy", thus my suspicion that Bessler may have solved the vis viva dispute long before any of his more illustrious contemporaries. In exactly this same vein:
• The jacks might also represent another dualism - another form of fundamental conserved quantity - in terms of mass times velocity, AKA momentum.
This potential meaning may be more significant since items 'A' and 'B' on the Toys page (the 'staff & chain') are most-consistently interpreted as depicting a series of five reactionless accelerations:
- note that A & B appear to show, in elementary form, two vertical 'links' running from left-to-right eyelets on the staff, followed by a single vertical link running back from right-to-left; this sequence repeated 5 times. If these vertical bars represent 'momenta' or 'torques' about an axis, then they show a directional asymmetry. As noted elsewhere, 5 reactionless accelerations-and-collisions of 25% efficiency each result in 125% efficiency at the end of the fifth cycle; something extraordinary indeed. This simply assumes equal clockwise vs counter-clockwise inertias, and any effective N3 violation..
So my best bet for now is that the jacks represent the essential form of 'excess impetus' one should look for in his machines, namely the conserved product of mass and velocity, ie. 'momentum', imbalanced and thus vectored in one direction. Additionally, the conserved nature of force * displacement, and thus 'work' / 'energy' was also something he understood perfectly well, and which is quite literally embodied by the depiction of linear leverage.
There is no single "secret mechanism", no clever 'trick' to raising weights, GPE in = GKE out, F*d and m*V are conserved quantities - elements of the nature of motion - as well as ones that need bending to our will if our objective is to accumulate m*V at its minimum F*d value (and thus 'gain' KE we haven't paid for).
As ever, it seems to me the various clues are as much - and perhaps moreso - an 'IP claim', as replication or specific build instructions.. his way of telling any future co-discoverers "I was here before you!"
To crack the mystery we need to work backwards - start with our eyes on the prize, and describe what a 'successful' outcome looks like; so we'll have a wheel, that self-accelerates, maintains speed whilst driving a load, and does all this without external input energy, or, crucially, any visible stator or external inertia, as any normal motor or engine would depend upon. So we can arbitrarily assign it a weight, mass, MoI, RPM and momentum / KE at coasting speed etc. etc., just using the standard equations of motion. Then the question of how it got that momentum arises, being, as this is, a statorless system in which "everything must, of necessity, go around together". From this it is clear we're dealing with an effective N3 break, hence "OU" by buying angular momentum from gravity on the cheap, using some kind of co-rotating 'stator' that is always at equal speed to the 'rotor' at the start of each cycle, over some useful range of system RPM. That's an inherently-'OU' process. So those are, simply from implicit deduction, our basic design specs. We know what we need to do (accumulate unilateral momentum over successive cycles), we know gravity's the key to doing it (specifically it's a bottomless momentum source/sink obviating the usual need for inducing counter-momentum in some other inertia elsewhere in the system), gravity's also speed invariant ('cause it's time-invariant) hence why there's no such thing as 'terminal velocity', hence in principle we can keep on sourcing or sinking momentum to or from it across some useful range of RPM, and accumulate the differences, with a bit of artful thought, paying only the 'standing-start' values of 'V²' in the KE=½mV² equation (½ J / kg-m/s), whilst building up the net system velocity, and thus actual KE=½mV² value, for a fraction of its worth - a fraction which gets smaller the more momentum we can consolidate this way, and thus the higher the RPM's get..
Increasingly, i get the impression that this must also be close to the way Bessler solved it - and hence anyone looking for build instructions in the clues, rather than 'points of physics' (ie. 'interesting' mechanical interactions, from our perspective, our those that appear to challenge the standard laws of motion, and are more likely what Bessler was trying to convey than specific machine designs), may be on the wrong foot..
• whereas the raising (or reduction) of any momentum anywhere usually depends upon a force applied between an inertia versus some other inertia - and so preserving the products of inertia and velocity in each direction, keeping the system's net momentum constant or nil - kiiking sources or sinks momentum directly to and from gravity itself, without having to apply a force against some other inertia... in short, gravity is both an effective source, and sink, for classical momentum; hence kiiking can and does generate reactionless angular momentum from gravity. No counter-torque's applied back to the swing axis. Kiiking is, in short, a form of effective N3 violation - we can use it to gain momentum in one direction without counter-accelerating some other inertia in the opposite direction. Suffice to say, this amounts to a tantalising wildcard in its own right..
• consider a given GPE - could be whatever you like; let's call it 1 kg at 1 meter height at 1 G. This gives it a GPE - and a KE when dropped over that height - of 9.81 J.
This of course perfectly agrees with gravity's function and value as an ambient time-rate-of-change of momentum of 9.81 kg-m/s per kg of gravitating mass. However, we can prove the fine detail of that point by adding additional, non-gravitating inertia to the drop; for example, we could place the weight on the edge of a vertical wheel, which itself remains balanced but which nonetheless still has inertia; now when the weight drops, its downwards acceleration is hindered by having to lug around the angular inertia of the wheel it's attached to, so it drops more slowly, increasing its time-spent-gravitating over the 1 meter drop height; however upon toting up all of the system momentum - the weight's, plus the wheel's, it again comes in at 9.81 kg-m/s per kg of actual weight... regardless of the ratio of gravitating to non-gravitating mass!
We could instead spool the weight off a reel that spins up a flywheel, or use a pulley to convert its vertical motion into a horizontal force dragging another mass sideways.. but however we arrange the distributions of gravitating to non-gravitating mass, the total system change in momentum over that 1 meter drop height is absolutely constant.
For 1 kg over 1 meter at 1 g, the total change in system momentum comes in at 4.43 kg-m/s. The ratio of non-gravitating mass could be anything from zero to infinity; regardless, the total change in system momentum for a 1 kg weight changing height by 1 meter is 4.43 kg-m/s. The ratio of non-gravitating mass could be anything, having no effect upon that momentum yield, which remains purely a function of how much mass has changed how much height.
Yet, there is one, single thing we can do to alter that outcome - apply an inertial torque, caused by an MoI change, whilst the weight's rising or falling! This applies reactionless torques, speeding up or slowing down the ascent or descent as we please!
And this is where things get fascinating; by changing the default momentum yield this way, gaining or losing more or less than 4.43 kg-m/s for 1 kg of actual weight over 1 meter of height, we've broken the basic symmetry of CoM, which is spatial, not temporal: it's the reasoning behind the concept of the 'zero momentum frame'...
The zero momentum frame is the frame of reference between two or more interacting inertias from which vantage the net system position remains stationary. Kiiking accelerates the zero momentum frame!
Gaining momentum from gravity this way is not so 'reactionless' after all; CoM depends upon the 'momentum yield' for 1 kg cycling over 1 meter's height at 1 G to be a fat zero: whatever gravity's value, and thus the momentum yield in either direction, CoM depends upon it being the same yield in each direction, so 4.43 kg-m/s up, as down, for example..
..whereas, if we instead collect, say, 5 kg-m/s on the way down, and only repay 4 kg-m/s on the way back up - it's still 1 kg moving 1 meter relative, only now we've also caused a 1 kg-m/s displacement of the zero-momentum frame, thus we've effectively accelerated the net system / changed the net system momentum, where 'net system' includes the Earth..
In short, when kiikers no longer oscillate but perform full 360° loops, progressively gaining angular momentum in one direction, they're gaining momentum in an otherwise closed system of interacting masses purely via the internal expenditure of work - so rendering an effective violation of both N1 and N3.
Only gravity, as a 'force', makes this possible; it doesn't work the same way with any other fundamental force. More succinctly, it's due to the fact that gravity isn't really a force at all, since it already violates N2, per Galileo's principle (rock and feather fall at same rate in vacuum, ie. their acceleration is not dependent upon their mass, per F=mA / A=F/m), so in summary, kiiking depends upon the apparent flouting of all three laws of motion!
The main take-home, for us, is that first point; generating momentum always involves generating equal opposing counter-momentum. No torque without counter-torque.. Kiiking, first and foremost, turns that convention on its head and instead treats the gravity field we're immersed in as a potential source and sink for infinite unilateral momentum.. gravity becomes a bottomless reservoir of momentum that obviates the usual requirement to propel some other mass backwards in opposition to, and balance of, a desired momentum change.
And that's the prospective hot ticket, here - a potential workaround to the usual constraints of N3 in causing the PE cost of momentum to square with velocity along with its KE value. "OU" really refers to UU input energy, ie., momentum bought on the cheap, for less than its change in KE value.
I recommend everyone tries a few of these exercises for themselves - check the momentum yield for a given weight vs height, then try changing the proportion of non-gravitating mass; note the inflexibility of the resulting momentum yield (constant regardless), and then try chucking the ice-skater effect into the mix, speeding up or slowing down the lift or drop times with inertial torques. Now note how the momentum yield changes in direct proportion to the up vs down time differential. All we're doing is swinging, as we've done intuitively and reflexively since childhood. All we're doing is applying MoI variations to cause reactionless accelerations / decelerations (which themselves depend upon conserving net momentum), thus shortening or lengthening the respective lift vs drop times, and so exchanging more or less momentum with gravity over the respective inbound / outbound legs of the GPE cycle.
Breaking all three laws of motion is literally kids' stuff!
I suspect the scissorjacks are one of Bessler's (pre-Rosetta stone) 'hieroglyphs', intended to denote something important but more abstract:
• Bessler demonstrates a good understanding of the conservative nature of leverage; what we'd call the 'law of levers', essentially, that the product of force and displacement is a conserved quantity - they're thus covariant properties, embodied in literal form by the scissorjacks.
Force times displacement is also of course our modern definition of "work" and "energy", thus my suspicion that Bessler may have solved the vis viva dispute long before any of his more illustrious contemporaries. In exactly this same vein:
• The jacks might also represent another dualism - another form of fundamental conserved quantity - in terms of mass times velocity, AKA momentum.
This potential meaning may be more significant since items 'A' and 'B' on the Toys page (the 'staff & chain') are most-consistently interpreted as depicting a series of five reactionless accelerations:
- note that A & B appear to show, in elementary form, two vertical 'links' running from left-to-right eyelets on the staff, followed by a single vertical link running back from right-to-left; this sequence repeated 5 times. If these vertical bars represent 'momenta' or 'torques' about an axis, then they show a directional asymmetry. As noted elsewhere, 5 reactionless accelerations-and-collisions of 25% efficiency each result in 125% efficiency at the end of the fifth cycle; something extraordinary indeed. This simply assumes equal clockwise vs counter-clockwise inertias, and any effective N3 violation..
So my best bet for now is that the jacks represent the essential form of 'excess impetus' one should look for in his machines, namely the conserved product of mass and velocity, ie. 'momentum', imbalanced and thus vectored in one direction. Additionally, the conserved nature of force * displacement, and thus 'work' / 'energy' was also something he understood perfectly well, and which is quite literally embodied by the depiction of linear leverage.
There is no single "secret mechanism", no clever 'trick' to raising weights, GPE in = GKE out, F*d and m*V are conserved quantities - elements of the nature of motion - as well as ones that need bending to our will if our objective is to accumulate m*V at its minimum F*d value (and thus 'gain' KE we haven't paid for).
As ever, it seems to me the various clues are as much - and perhaps moreso - an 'IP claim', as replication or specific build instructions.. his way of telling any future co-discoverers "I was here before you!"
To crack the mystery we need to work backwards - start with our eyes on the prize, and describe what a 'successful' outcome looks like; so we'll have a wheel, that self-accelerates, maintains speed whilst driving a load, and does all this without external input energy, or, crucially, any visible stator or external inertia, as any normal motor or engine would depend upon. So we can arbitrarily assign it a weight, mass, MoI, RPM and momentum / KE at coasting speed etc. etc., just using the standard equations of motion. Then the question of how it got that momentum arises, being, as this is, a statorless system in which "everything must, of necessity, go around together". From this it is clear we're dealing with an effective N3 break, hence "OU" by buying angular momentum from gravity on the cheap, using some kind of co-rotating 'stator' that is always at equal speed to the 'rotor' at the start of each cycle, over some useful range of system RPM. That's an inherently-'OU' process. So those are, simply from implicit deduction, our basic design specs. We know what we need to do (accumulate unilateral momentum over successive cycles), we know gravity's the key to doing it (specifically it's a bottomless momentum source/sink obviating the usual need for inducing counter-momentum in some other inertia elsewhere in the system), gravity's also speed invariant ('cause it's time-invariant) hence why there's no such thing as 'terminal velocity', hence in principle we can keep on sourcing or sinking momentum to or from it across some useful range of RPM, and accumulate the differences, with a bit of artful thought, paying only the 'standing-start' values of 'V²' in the KE=½mV² equation (½ J / kg-m/s), whilst building up the net system velocity, and thus actual KE=½mV² value, for a fraction of its worth - a fraction which gets smaller the more momentum we can consolidate this way, and thus the higher the RPM's get..
Increasingly, i get the impression that this must also be close to the way Bessler solved it - and hence anyone looking for build instructions in the clues, rather than 'points of physics' (ie. 'interesting' mechanical interactions, from our perspective, our those that appear to challenge the standard laws of motion, and are more likely what Bessler was trying to convey than specific machine designs), may be on the wrong foot..
-
Georg Künstler
- Devotee
- Posts: 1718
- Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2003 12:22 pm
- Location: Speyer, Germany
- Contact:
re: The significance of kiiking - the most probable solution
To make it clear,
there is no violation of the existing laws.
What we have is an overlay of two swingings.
And what you have discovered that we have different accelerations of the mass is correct.
What we have to do is to make the same accelerations on the left and on the right side of the wheel, but the forces are acting on an different lever arm length.
Doing a swinging in a rotational frame you get an fast up and a slow down function of the movement of the mass.
Therefore you can study the wheels of death for the beginning.
When two persons are in this wheel, then one is going to the rim,
the other to the axle. Then they change their position.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKFAly6G5cA
Put such a construction on the road, with no fix middle axle, it will roll.
The next step you must do, change the reference point, you have a moving road, then you have reached your aim.
there is no violation of the existing laws.
What we have is an overlay of two swingings.
And what you have discovered that we have different accelerations of the mass is correct.
What we have to do is to make the same accelerations on the left and on the right side of the wheel, but the forces are acting on an different lever arm length.
Doing a swinging in a rotational frame you get an fast up and a slow down function of the movement of the mass.
Therefore you can study the wheels of death for the beginning.
When two persons are in this wheel, then one is going to the rim,
the other to the axle. Then they change their position.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKFAly6G5cA
Put such a construction on the road, with no fix middle axle, it will roll.
The next step you must do, change the reference point, you have a moving road, then you have reached your aim.
Best regards
Georg
Georg
re: The significance of kiiking - the most probable solution
Marchello E.
-- May the force lift you up. In case it doesn't, try something else.---
-- May the force lift you up. In case it doesn't, try something else.---
re: The significance of kiiking - the most probable solution
https://www.besslerwheel.com/wwwboard/messages/435.html
The 'swinging' interpretation wasn't so straightforward after all.Scott wrote:One of the few straightforward remarks that Bessler ever made about the wheel was that the weights “gained force from their own swinging.�
re: The significance of kiiking - the most probable solution
.
Last edited by silent on Mon Oct 04, 2021 6:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.
re: The significance of kiiking - the most probable solution
I think silent and others that we are on the right track.
However I am now thinking though go back to the sliding rods in agor95's posts and my Toys page interpretation recently and connect the X bars near the axis with a simple gear. As the descending rod comes down it shoots the "horizontal" bar across with a simple gear wheel. The springs enhance the movement and cancel out CFs. The connection needs to be more than this but you get the idea. "THE CONNECTEDNESS PRINCIPLE"
However I am now thinking though go back to the sliding rods in agor95's posts and my Toys page interpretation recently and connect the X bars near the axis with a simple gear. As the descending rod comes down it shoots the "horizontal" bar across with a simple gear wheel. The springs enhance the movement and cancel out CFs. The connection needs to be more than this but you get the idea. "THE CONNECTEDNESS PRINCIPLE"
- Attachments
-
I only realized too late that life was short.
I have chosen to think we need a more complex solution than a spring.silent wrote:So even though agor95's website with the weights on the crossbars seems simple, isn't that in effect what kiiking is? One weight goes in while one goes out? Do that on the horizontal and you've got it made.
silent
There is a need for the wheel / pendulum to operate at different speeds.
First starting with small a movement and then it increases while it gains energy with each swing.
One way to do that is a set of springs stacked instead of one.
These are graded in small length with small strength [K] to large length large strength [K].
I pick eight springs as it fits the clues.
A 'Stork Bill' can be implemented to act as this stacked spring device.
One implementation is to attach the small end to the rim [outer rod end] and a mass on the other. The 'Stork Bill' works in compression.
Regards
[MP] Mobiles that perpetuate - external energy allowed
Re: re: The significance of kiiking - the most probable solu
I did look at this idea and found it a little too controlling also it prevented an optimal effect.DrWhat wrote:I think silent and others that we are on the right track.
However I am now thinking though go back to the sliding rods in agor95's posts and my Toys page interpretation recently and connect the X bars near the axis with a simple gear.
0O0
The connection needs to be more than this but you get the idea. "THE CONNECTEDNESS PRINCIPLE"
The two rods are connected via there linked rotation.
One just goes around put another helps move the first over 'The Raising of Weights'.
Regards
[MP] Mobiles that perpetuate - external energy allowed