Poss. Symmetry Break?

[MrVibrating]

Hi Daan yes, you're quite right, as i noted earlier, there's a trade of horizontal for vertical displacement due to the conrod crossing the axle diagonally, and hence a variation in inertia as a function of the work conversion efficiency (cranks are most efficient at 90° and minimally effective at 180° torque angles).

However as also previously noted, the pendulums / water screw can only be hinting at an inertial variation - they're not practical means to implementing one, because to convert a drop in MoI to a rise in velocity, all of the mass involved has to be able to accelerate together, presumably about a common axis. So pendulums hanging from a separate, non-co-rotating axis, can't re-shuffle their MoI to create our energy gain.

This is why i'm trying to 'put the alert out' - an "APB", if you will - that there IS an MoI-modulating principle to be found, because if the illustrations i'm referencing are interpreted in terms of inertia, an open system is implicit. However that principle cannot be harnessed via the pendulums or water screw themselves - they're just hinting at variable MoI, but not the means to convert it to velocity and KE gain.

I believe that if we refocus our collective attentions on MoI and all its determining factors, an exploit is going to fall out.. the pictures are telling us it's there. We just need to uncover it.

[MrVibrating]

Okay here's an angle:

Fundamentally, point-mass MoI equals mass times radius squared. All of the other object-specific MoI formulas (discs, torroids etc.) are based on this underlying relationship.

So if we take that I=MR^2 and apply it to equal radial displacements from the axis heading outwards, compared to those heading from the perimeter back in, we seem to have a discrepancy...

IOW a 1 cm radial displacement from the center outwards causes a smaller change in MoI than a 1 cm change from the perimeter back inwards - because MoI squares with radius.

This then implies that if we begin with a mass at the center moving outwards, and an identical mass at the perimeter moving inwards, both moving radially at equal speeds, their influences on the changing MoI are not equal and opposite...

This seems counter-intutitve - prior to considering this point, i'd assumed that this would cause no net change in MoI - that the variations would cancel.

But here we appear to have a non-linearity...

By my reckoning, if one mass begins at the outer edge, and the other close to the center, and both slide across the wheel at equal rate (as if connected by a rigid rod), swapping their inner / outer positions by making a 1R translation 180° across the wheel, the MoI varies during this action...


Peak MoI corresponds to the point where both masses are equidistant from center & edge (ie. when the wheel is perfectly balanced, although i'm currently only considering the MoI independently of gravity). Either side of that center of gravity, MoI increases in both directions the masses may slide radially.

IF anyone else could confirm or refute this, then we may have something useful..?? All of the mass is rotating together, so can accelerate or decelerate together, so if the MoI is varying then our wheel is getting heavier and lighter and we can drop stuff when it's heavy and pick it up when it's light..

[ME]

By my reckoning, if one mass begins at the outer edge, and the other close to the center, and both slide across the wheel at equal rate (as if connected by a rigid rod), swapping their inner / outer positions by making a 1R translation 180° across the wheel, the MoI varies during this action...

Check

Peak MoI corresponds to the point where both masses are equidistant from center & edge

If I understand and done this correctly:
I=sum( m*r^2)
Let R be the maximum radius =1, we could multiply it afterwards;
Let's make r the radius of mass[1], then mass[2] has a radius of (1-r)
considering only those masses: I= m*r1^2+m*(1-r1)^2 = m*(1+2*r*(r-1))
At r=0, or r=1 --> I=1*m
At r=0.5 --> I =0.5*m

Peak MoI corresponds to the point where both masses are equidistant from center & edge

According to me it's the opposite, and Moment of Inertia is lowest when balanced halfway. A rotating wheel/carousel should reach maximum velocity at that point.

IF anyone else could confirm or refute this, then we may have something useful..?? All of the mass is rotating together, so can accelerate or decelerate together, so if the MoI is varying then our wheel is getting heavier and lighter and we can drop stuff when it's heavy and pick it up when it's light..

Although MoI varies when the weights oscillates in their radial position, so does the acceleration and velocity. Doesn't this drop/pickup requires energy?

[MrVibrating]

Oops yes you're right - i got it back-arsewards. Min MoI (peak RKE) corresponds to the balanced position!

Thanks very much for entertaining this gibberish...

Just tried a very rough sim verifying this but your maths are indisputable (good show)... i placed the masses on opposte sides of a wheel, one close to the center, the other out by the rim, and fixed to a crossbar sliding radially across the wheel on a keyed slot joint, using a constant-velocity motor to turn the wheel and a spring to slide the crossbar. WM2D lacks a specific MoI measure but using the momentum measure instead, it does indeed vary for such a radial translation at constant RPM.

Although MoI varies when the weights oscillates in their radial position, so does the acceleration and velocity. Doesn't this drop/pickup requires energy?

Most probably... still feeling my way around here. But suppose for a moment that velocity is held constant - the variation in MoI is still a variation in angular momentum, and so a torque is produced - its sign alternating with increasing vs decreasing MoI.

If a time-varying field is to perform free work upon an invariant one (such as gravity / mass), the two must be decoupled; ie. our alternating torque has to be passive with respect to the closed system of GPE inputs and outputs.

So on that count, it seems rational to suppose that these radial translations are a conservative zero-sum - if gravity's disregarded for now, then the crossbar slides 'uphill' towards its min-MoI CoG position, requiring an input of energy, but then throws this back out again as it slides down the other side into its opposite max-MoI position.

And in-between we have a corresponding rising and falling torque on the wheel.

So the logical question is, does work performed by that torque - ie. decelerations against the wheel - cause a corresponding rise in cost of operating the crossbar? Ie. would raising a weight or whatever, present as a load upon the crossbar's balance of input to output energies (assuming its own GPE costs were a zero sum)?

[MrVibrating]

Trying to answer my own question here..

if we raise a weight when MoI is falling, and the negative torque exerted by the lifted weight precisely equals the positive torque from the falling MoI such that net wheel velocity remains constant, then the cost of operating the crossbar must also be constant for this phase.

If the subsequent negative torque as MoI rises again is countered by an identical GPE drop, again keeping the net angular velocty constant, then the cost of operating the crossbar remains constant for this phase also.

In short, if input and output workloads are synchronised such that inertial and gravitationally-induced torques always mutually self-cancel, then net velocity is held constant and thus the cost of operating the crossbar is always a zero sum.

But then this system doesn't seem to gain net energy either.

So there must be some other permutation, or missing factor..

I'm almost certain there's a solution here, somewhere. We have the X marking the spot.. just a matter of digging deep enough.

[John doe]

I think your absolutely correct MrVibrating!

[ME]

Oops yes you're right - i got it back-arsewards. Min MoI (peak RKE) corresponds to the balanced position!

Thanks very much for entertaining this gibberish...

When we try to do things correctly all the time, we might never find something that works: "Oops"="Good"

So the logical question is, does work performed by that torque - ie. decelerations against the wheel - cause a corresponding rise in cost of operating the crossbar? Ie. would raising a weight or whatever, present as a load upon the crossbar's balance of input to output energies (assuming its own GPE costs were a zero sum)?

The fictitious gravity will diminish when the speed drops, so that means it would require less energy.

If you ask me then MoI, angular acceleration, angular velocity (etc) will all oscillate there influences among each other until friction eats it up. So don't mind me.

[daanopperman]

Mr V ,

If we use a mass rotated by the wheel , connected to the wheel , your gain might be eaten up , but maybee as in the stampers , not so .

In a previous post I stated it is possible to rotate a horiszontal pivoted plate with 2 people walking in circles on it , and gave a small drawing of it , without the moving mass being connected to ground , ( Cloud Camper ) that is a fact , for one walking form the rim towards the CoR , and visa versa would not be the same . This will change whether they are driven or driving .

I also honnestly believe that a pendulum ( not saying that was what JB was using ) can change the MoI of a rotating disk , and also the velocity of a moving mass , and store the energy , to be released as whished . ( the bow twang )
The greater the differrence in mass , between the pendulum and the wheel , and the manipilation of the displacement of the crank , the manifestasion of the " JERK " ( as the GENTELMAN has put it ) will be humonges .

Daan .

( I am on a cell and have no access to all the normal buttons and bells )

[MrVibrating]

@John

Ta mate, not quite there yet but i have a good idea of what's missing.. some kind of asymmetric rate of change of increasing vs decreasing MoI, or something along such lines. Either the wheel itself gains KE as a function of varying MoI, or else the internal mass displacements do. But whether the wheel gains energy and gives it to the weights, or vice versa, MoI is definitely the wild card between CoM and CoE...


@Marcello

LOL i actually had it the right way around in my head - and correctly wrote that MoI increases in either direction away from the CoG... so was obviously thinking "increases from a minimum". I just wrote maximum. Left, right, CW / CCW, it's all so confusing..

As for the CF / velocity relationship, that's one reason why i'm trying to think in terms of constant velocities, with torque varying rather than RPM.

Plus, Bessler's wheels obviously weren't varying their RPM on a per-cycle basis, so if his wheels were exploiting a varying MoI then it would've been manifesting as torque variations rather than speed..

Unless the speed variations were internal and somewhat independent of the wheel..

Obviously standard MoI variation per the ice-skater effect is a dead end without some kind of innovative extra factor. But the mere fact that MoI is variable, opens a door otherwise locked to us by mass constancy in linear systems, so if this does enable an asymmetry, friction can eat all it likes..

[daanopperman]

If JB paced a pendulum on the outside of the wheel , it would be clear for all to see , so a light pendulum , with extra weight on the T bar at the top of the pendulum , and braces to the bar T from the pendulum shaft to stop it from deforming .

The wheel could never drive the pendulum , for the period of the pendulum is always the same , whether a small arc or large , but the period for a excelerating wheel is increasing as velocity increases .

Also , the pendulum could never regulate the speed of the wheel , for if there is x amount of weights in a wheel , so many pendulums would be requiered .

[MrVibrating]

Mr V ,

If we use a mass rotated by the wheel , connected to the wheel , your gain might be eaten up , but maybee as in the stampers , not so .

In a previous post I stated it is possible to rotate a horiszontal pivoted plate with 2 people walking in circles on it , and gave a small drawing of it , without the moving mass being connected to ground , ( Cloud Camper ) that is a fact , for one walking form the rim towards the CoR , and visa versa would not be the same . This will change whether they are driven or driving .

I also honnestly believe that a pendulum ( not saying that was what JB was using ) can change the MoI of a rotating disk , and also the velocity of a moving mass , and store the energy , to be released as whished . ( the bow twang )
The greater the differrence in mass , between the pendulum and the wheel , and the manipilation of the displacement of the crank , the manifestasion of the " JERK " ( as the GENTELMAN has put it ) will be humonges .

Daan .

( I am on a cell and have no access to all the normal buttons and bells )

On the one hand, we're drawn to the obvious advantages of having our inertia-modifying factors external to the wheel's rotation - like the pendulums or water screw - and yet at the same time, in order for an MoI variation to be converted into a velocity and thus energy gain, all of the mass of the system has to be able to accelerate together.

So this is an obvious limitation of any 'outboard' inertias - sure, they can contribute their varying MoI to that of the net system, but if they're not actually on board when it accelerates then the system's net momentum and energy can't rise.

This would be 100% consistent with Bessler's claim that in a true PM, everything must, of necessity, go around together. It is all but spelling out that the exploit is variable MoI, in big neon letters.

But the fact that the net mass of the system must share a common center of rotation, does not preclude the variable-MoI components from having their own, orbiting or co-rotating / co-axial axes... so long as they orbit the common center of rotation, everything can still accelerate together.

The linear / radial inertia of the stampers (independent of their GPE) might represent just such an opportunity (as noted previously) - their linear inertia is also potential reaction mass for torque in a rotating frame.

Maybe we need to think about the possibility of playing two different forms of MoI modulation against each other - say, increase the MoI by adding linear radial inertias, then decrease it by changing radial mass distributions, or something (since having only one form of MoI modulation seems to rather limit our return options, undoing gains in trying to reset by going back the same way we came).

MoI is basically mass, but with a little "change me" sticker. It's begging to be exploited. We have our key variable, we just need a way to rectify gains from losses..

[MrVibrating]

If JB paced a pendulum on the outside of the wheel , it would be clear for all to see , so a light pendulum , with extra weight on the T bar at the top of the pendulum , and braces to the bar T from the pendulum shaft to stop it from deforming .

The wheel could never drive the pendulum , for the period of the pendulum is always the same , whether a small arc or large , but the period for a excelerating wheel is increasing as velocity increases .

Also , the pendulum could never regulate the speed of the wheel , for if there is x amount of weights in a wheel , so many pendulums would be requiered .

Either way, the illustrations seem to strongly imply that speed regulation is either a key cause or effect of the exploit.

One particular witness (i forget which) made an interesting observation, that the RPM of the wheel seemed unaffected whether it was lowering or rasining a 70 lb box of bricks via a pulley and tackle.

If a wheel was torqued by over balance (ie. a weight drop) then the external load is effectively balanced against the internal weight drop, so the wheel would noticably slow down when lifting, and speed up when lowering the applied load.

If there is anything to this particular apparent paradox, then to resolve it we're compelled to look for an MoI-related factor having some degree of periodicty, which can brake as well as accelerate the net rotation (and likely relies on both in turn).

The only thing that could prevent a free-spinning wheel from accelerating while lowering a load is inertia, or counter-inertia, since there's no stator to brake against.

Of course, the other possibility is simply that the rope connecting the box of bricks to the axle was only wound in one direction, which would mean the wheel rotated backwards when lowering the load. Hence, if it was a one-way wheel ( i forget which demo this pertained to), then it may well have been destroying energy when run in reverse, at an equal rate to the energy gain in the other direction when lifting.

If OTOH it was a two-way wheel, then the constant rate of lift and drop suggests internal positive and negative torque phases varied depending on the sign of the applied load - adding as much negative torque when lowering the box, as positive torque when raising it.

IIRC there was also another anecdote suggeting that the wheel had a maximum speed, resisting further accelerations, but i need to re-read JC's books to refresh my memory..

Obviously the wheels didn't need an external load in order to operate, but however incidental this characteristic, it does seem to put an inertially-bound periodicity squarely in the frame..

My whole inspiration for this thread is the notion that the pendulums are the elephant in the custard, and a metaphor for a periodic inertial variation.

Again, note carefully that if the stampers are being alternately raised and dropped, as the accompanying text claims, then this direction of the axle means the box of bricks is being lowered, not raised as claimed.

So the box of bricks is an input load, and the stampers an output load.

Whereas, if we assume things run on the opposite direction then the box is being rasied, and the stampers are pushed down by the axle, apparently then 'falling' up again.

Similarly, in the image with the Archimedes screw; if the water is being raised then the stampers are being propelled downwards, from whenceforth they would again need to fall upwards. Conversely if the stampers are actually being alternately raised and dropped, then the water is flowing down through the screw, not upwards.

Since the stampers cannot fall upwards, we must conclude that the rope and water exiting thru the window actually represent energy entering the system from outside.

And because the pendulums in the water screw image aren't even connected to anything, it seems likely that they represent the periodic factor behind everything, opening the system to this window of opportunity... in this particlar instance, their role replaced by that of the square sprocket.

In both cases, time-varying inertia is the single most consistent interpretation, both in relation to themselves and the clues from other sources. This is what opens the window to an input of energy...

[Fletcher]

So far jim_mich is the only one claiming to have an actual mechanical arrangement that does this. No public physical proof as yet.

Personally, I could never find one fit for purpose (maybe lack of imagination), but I enjoy following others as they plumb the depths looking for one. Maybe they/you will succeed Mr V.

More power to your elbow.

[ME]

LOL i actually had it the right way around in my head - and correctly wrote that MoI increases in either direction away from the CoG... so was obviously thinking "increases from a minimum". I just wrote maximum. Left, right, CW / CCW, it's all so confusing..

As for the CF / velocity relationship, that's one reason why i'm trying to think in terms of constant velocities, with torque varying rather than RPM.

Plus, Bessler's wheels obviously weren't varying their RPM on a per-cycle basis, so if his wheels were exploiting a varying MoI then it would've been manifesting as torque variations rather than speed..

Unless the speed variations were internal and somewhat independent of the wheel..

PMM is sooo counter intuitive :-)

For the last wheel they counted 26 RPM. I don't know how they measured it, but it wouldn't be 0.43 rotations per second. Perhaps they took two minutes on their pocket watch and counted to 52. It's never mentioned there could be a slight speed-up or slow-down between partial rotations.
So I don't know how "obvious" such constant RPM really is.

Obviously standard MoI variation per the ice-skater effect is a dead end without some kind of innovative extra factor.

Here's a some new factor to look at:
Take two ice-skaters and while rotating they pull and push each other in synchronicity so they also rotate as a pair (poor skaters).

Or when those ice-skaters get too dizzy then take a cat: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sepYP_knGWc

[MrVibrating]

Don't have the quotes onhand but seem to remember they were all in agreement about it spinning up to a steady clip within a few rotations.

We also have testimony that the orignal one-way wheel gave a significant kick upwards on one of its support posts (as if in the precession plane), possibly indicating a radial inertia and thus a changing MoI.

Or 100 other things. I know this'll prolly fizzle out in a few days, but i ain't done yet.. I'm convinced an MoI exploit is the solution, and that we'll inevitably uncover it if we just turn over enough rocks.

As for the skaters, take the ice away - two interacting inertias in free space could accelerate each other in opposite directions of spin... but is the net energy and momentum of our opponently-pirouetting astronauts zero, or positive? It appears high from either's FoR, but zero from an external FoR.

If one astronaut then drew his arms inwards to self-accelerate, halving his MoI and so doubling his RPM, his RKE rises by half the square of the velocity increase and now, although both momentums are still equal and opposite, summing to zero... the net system energies no longer cancel, and the black-box KE has risen independently of outside influence while net momentum remains nil..! Should also work for cats, tho you'd wanna wear thick gloves.

So how can a system of contra-rotating felines have zero net momentum and yet positive KE as measured from the same FoR? The excess KE is a consequence of the asymmetric distribution of M to V for a given P - so the net P's of opposite signs still cancel, but if there's a remnant KE it has to have a corresponding velocity / mass and thus momentum. So if it's not classical, yet momentum is fundamentally conserved, that only leaves quantum..

Hence, in principle, any system of mutually counter-rotating cats is capable of generating excess energy from ambient quantum momentum. Unassailable proof, at least, that they know more than they're letting on..