Wow fascinating, cheers for sharing mate.
The key point here is momentum transfer, rather than mass transfer, and in all my tests, precessional KE came at the expense of RKE...
Nutation is another interesting motion - a cyclical oscillation of the precessional angle. I couldn't find any advantage in any of it, and of course couldn't even sim any of it in just 2D..
Good luck with the tests tho!
Plying CF as pseudo-inertia to scam N3
Moderator: scott
-
MrVibrating
- Addict
- Posts: 2879
- Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2010 12:19 am
- Location: W3
...a week on, i'm much clearer on what's going on now.
Momentum created ex nihilo from inside a moving reference frame does not need to be accelerated into that frame.
Rather, the manufactured momentum comes into existence at whatever the ambient velocity of the system it is borne into.
Its cost is constant, because inertia is not speed-dependent.
But the KE value of that created momentum, relative to the static frame, is speed-dependent.
Or to put it another way, it's cheaper to make your own momentum as you go along, than to accelerate it all up to speed from a standing start. The value of that generated momentum however remains relative to the stationary frame.
And while i've no way of knowing exactly what was inside Bessler's wheels, it seems certain that this is the only exploit possible, in all of mechanics. This is the only self-consistent, mathematically and physically plausible process capable of generating both energy and momentum, as well as being consistent with many Bessler clues - remember, he that in a "true PMM, everything must, of necessity, go around together; there can be nothing involved in it which remains stationary upon the axle"... This is the hallmark characteristic of a system based upon an N3 exploit.. and thus a divergent reference frame. Why his wheels were all statorless, and why he insisted this was a necessary condition. It's why his wheels emitted bangs, and also why Wolff had the impression the internal weights were landing with excess momentum.
Just in terms of pure theory, if you start with a presumption of mechanical OU and then work backwards, this is the only possibly way it can play out.. per Noether's theorem. There has to be a passive time-dependent variation in force, precisely what gravity does to the distribution of momentum during a vertical inertial interaction.
I'm gonna be working all weekend so won't have much time for this, but will update anything that seems important as it occurs to me..
Momentum created ex nihilo from inside a moving reference frame does not need to be accelerated into that frame.
Rather, the manufactured momentum comes into existence at whatever the ambient velocity of the system it is borne into.
Its cost is constant, because inertia is not speed-dependent.
But the KE value of that created momentum, relative to the static frame, is speed-dependent.
Or to put it another way, it's cheaper to make your own momentum as you go along, than to accelerate it all up to speed from a standing start. The value of that generated momentum however remains relative to the stationary frame.
And while i've no way of knowing exactly what was inside Bessler's wheels, it seems certain that this is the only exploit possible, in all of mechanics. This is the only self-consistent, mathematically and physically plausible process capable of generating both energy and momentum, as well as being consistent with many Bessler clues - remember, he that in a "true PMM, everything must, of necessity, go around together; there can be nothing involved in it which remains stationary upon the axle"... This is the hallmark characteristic of a system based upon an N3 exploit.. and thus a divergent reference frame. Why his wheels were all statorless, and why he insisted this was a necessary condition. It's why his wheels emitted bangs, and also why Wolff had the impression the internal weights were landing with excess momentum.
Just in terms of pure theory, if you start with a presumption of mechanical OU and then work backwards, this is the only possibly way it can play out.. per Noether's theorem. There has to be a passive time-dependent variation in force, precisely what gravity does to the distribution of momentum during a vertical inertial interaction.
I'm gonna be working all weekend so won't have much time for this, but will update anything that seems important as it occurs to me..
-
cloud camper
- Devotee
- Posts: 1083
- Joined: Tue Mar 15, 2011 12:20 am
re: Plying CF as pseudo-inertia to scam N3
Slowly working on a sim - in this case the reaction weights move in smooth controlled paths - no impacts.
Bessler said his wheels were not driven by heavy blows.
The impacts in this impementation all come from the timing control weights as in MT75.
Four weights that gently impact stops twice per revolution - eight impacts total - hmmm.
Also, I see no fundamental reason the wheel could not operate in either direction the one snag may be the timing weights which need to lead the reaction weights in order to keep the "horse before the cart".
This (if it works) will be similar to the camshaft/valve system on an IC engine in which the intake valves open much sooner than TDC.
Possibly a rotating timing plate similar to an older IC engine distributor timing advance changing the stop locations could be employed to allow operation in both directions.
Bessler said his wheels were not driven by heavy blows.
The impacts in this impementation all come from the timing control weights as in MT75.
Four weights that gently impact stops twice per revolution - eight impacts total - hmmm.
Also, I see no fundamental reason the wheel could not operate in either direction the one snag may be the timing weights which need to lead the reaction weights in order to keep the "horse before the cart".
This (if it works) will be similar to the camshaft/valve system on an IC engine in which the intake valves open much sooner than TDC.
Possibly a rotating timing plate similar to an older IC engine distributor timing advance changing the stop locations could be employed to allow operation in both directions.
In the story of Cinderella the coach came at the expense of the pumpkin. PKE is a higher form of energy than RKE in the same way that electricity is a higher form of energy than heat. PKE is a higher derivative than RKE. Think of it as being more refined. :-)MrVibrating wrote:Wow fascinating, cheers for sharing mate.
The key point here is momentum transfer, rather than mass transfer, and in all my tests, precessional KE came at the expense of RKE...
Nutation is another interesting motion - a cyclical oscillation of the precessional angle. I couldn't find any advantage in any of it, and of course couldn't even sim any of it in just 2D..
Good luck with the tests tho!
The CG of a stream of simple 360° pendulums falling from near zenith is in the limit at the zenith whereas the CG of pendulum bobs moving with uniform motion around the circular path is at the centre of the circle. Therefor there is a radius difference in NG potential energy. This shows up as PKE.
The situation is somewhat analogous to the "which car arrives first" demonstration where the quickest path across a canyon is down and up a brachistochrone curve which must be the optimum path. Any path more convex or more concave must be slower. I suppose brachistochrone is the optimum combination of RKE and PKE, an example of the equipartition of energy, perhaps.
Who is she that cometh forth as the morning rising, fair as the moon, bright as the sun, terribilis ut castrorum acies ordinata?
re: Plying CF as pseudo-inertia to scam N3
@ Grimer.
What a logical reasoning!
Beautiful!
Raj
What a logical reasoning!
Beautiful!
Raj
Keep learning till the end.
-
MrVibrating
- Addict
- Posts: 2879
- Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2010 12:19 am
- Location: W3
Re: re: Plying CF as pseudo-inertia to scam N3
Wow, this is hugely encouraging, thanks CC!cloud camper wrote:Slowly working on a sim - in this case the reaction weights move in smooth controlled paths - no impacts.
Bessler said his wheels were not driven by heavy blows.
The impacts in this impementation all come from the timing control weights as in MT75.
Four weights that gently impact stops twice per revolution - eight impacts total - hmmm.
Also, I see no fundamental reason the wheel could not operate in either direction the one snag may be the timing weights which need to lead the reaction weights in order to keep the "horse before the cart".
This (if it works) will be similar to the camshaft/valve system on an IC engine in which the intake valves open much sooner than TDC.
Possibly a rotating timing plate similar to an older IC engine distributor timing advance changing the stop locations could be employed to allow operation in both directions.
I think something along the lines of MT75 could be close to what we're looking for..
To qualify that - if i try to resolve just the Bessler clues, especially the Toys Page, it all seems, to me, to reduce to the basic features of MT75.
A while ago i actually posted up an animation of this - will have a dig through my files to see if i can find it.... but it's basically those diametric weight levers, which i presumed most likely to act under gravity, connected via pulleys to short weight levers at the periphery.
But back then i still couldn't figure out a working principle, or thus what it was all supposed to do..
If i ignore all the Bessler clues however and just look for any possible solution at all, then i end up with this N3 break guff.
If our educated-hunches about the general form of MT75 are correct, then we could be closer than i'd even thought.. will be looking closely at this later..
Re. bangs - not of course necessary, just the simplest way of dividing / sharing momentum, but yes, with a little more care, any elastic inertial exchange will do that job - the relative accelerations and decelerations could be smooth and quiet. All that matters is that one half of the inertial interaction is skewed by gravity, causing the initial momentum asymmetry, and that the second half is just a plain old symmetrical exchange, equalising that asymmetry into a non-zero sum of gained momentum.
Regarding directionality, i still see this as just an inevitable side-effect of the required sequencing of the asymmetric-followed-by-symmetric interactions - for example, a pair of weights fall, then accelerate apart vertically, then the lower one strikes the wheel body, immediately transferring say 50% of that momentum gain to the wheel to be consolidated over consecutive cycles, then bouncing back to rejoin the other mass with the remaining 50% of its momentum.. or something like this, whatever the precise margins..
Similarly, if the lower mass is angular instead of linear, then the momentum's being converted directly into an asymmetric rise in angular momentum of one sign.
So either way, it seems to me, a bi-directional wheel has to carry an inactive, reversed mechanism along for the ride, which neatly dovetails with the reduced speed of ~26 RPM; basically doubling the system's MoI halves the output of RKE product: 1/2 MoI * RPM^2... the MoI is basically twice what it needs to be for a one-directional system.
Anyway, gotta go work now, season finalé of TOWIE's shooting this weekend (Essex's premier cultural export, right sophisticated, like), and i'm running their rushes into the post production studios.. would rather take the W/E off but gotta make hay... Back later.
-
MrVibrating
- Addict
- Posts: 2879
- Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2010 12:19 am
- Location: W3
..re. automotive analogies, what we're doing here has similarities with another great German invention - Turbo / super-charging... EG. a 3-stage parallel reactionless acceleration (ie. all launching off one another at the same time) is kinda like a supercharged twin turbo effect.. we're basically using the output stages to velocity-charge successive input stages, type stuff.
-
MrVibrating
- Addict
- Posts: 2879
- Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2010 12:19 am
- Location: W3
re: Plying CF as pseudo-inertia to scam N3
Here's another, much simplified example:
It's just a wheel, plus a radial armature with a fixed weight on the end.
This time, the two inertias are not matched - the weight is 1 kg, the wheel 10 kg, so the wheel has much higher angular inertia than the 'pendulum'.
The situation is still idealised however, as a motor is being used to apply a constant angular acceleration.
FWIW i've made no calculations to derive the optimum acceleration here, i just kept trimming the value until the arm remained perfectly still.
And so, torque is applied at the axle between the pendulum and wheel, hence an inertial interaction is occuring, accelerating one against the other. There is no gravitational interaction occuring, since nothing is changing height... so no work is being performed by gravity. Hence the only workload occurring here is the inertial interaction - the mutual push between two, unmatched, angular inertias.
The crucial point being, as before, that only one mass is accelerating.
The motion of the smaller mass remains constant, per Newton's 1st law, since no net force is acting upon it.
Here we have a standing start, yet if we began instead with some angular velocity already, whatever the RPM, then all else being equal, only the wheel will be accelerated, the speed of the armature remaining constant.
(I say 'all else being equal' - obviously, once the whole thing's turning, then so is the armature's alignment to gravity, however if we apply the input torque through a symmetrical arc range around the horizontal 90° mark - ie. say between 80° and 100° - then we maintain no net input work against gravity)
But the point here is not to idealise the asymmetry, so much as highlight and underline its key steps - how it works, and why. A viable implementation doesn't need to be optimal or even particularly accurate to have a near-guaranteed chance of success. Any input torque whatsoever is going to mutually-counter-accelerate these two angular inertias. In zero-G, this will result in two equal opposing changes in angular momentum, summing to zero net change. But when repeated within a gravity field like this, those two induced angular momentum changes cannot be equal and opposite, and it becomes physically impossible to apply an equitable change in momentum! Here, this is once again idealised to a 100% asymmetry - a fully-asymmetric intertial interaction: only the wheel's momentum has been accelerated by the mutually-applied torque; we've thus raised momentum of one sign only.
So one can readily see that if, after applying this unilateral acceleration, we then suddenly locked the two components together, the armature will be accelerated, the wheel decelerated by a corresponding amount, conserving net momentum, and settling to a significantly non-zero equilibrium. The weight will drop, then rise back up and around, ready for the cycle to be repeated:
...again, this is an idealised, hence extreme, example, merely intended to demonstrate the gain principle.
A more practical realisation would be to have a massively-reduced input torque angle, of perhaps only a few degrees relative rotation, then immediately consolidating those gains and repeating the interaction with a successive mechanism. So long as all mechanisms are locked to the wheel whilst the active mechanism is applying an asymmetric distribution of momentum to it, the system is on an inexorable trajectory to OU, and within a few such interactions, will have more KE than has been spent on these angular accelerations.
Obviously, if we're intending to apply gravitational interactions as the source of these applied torques, then the name of the game is now PE management. The crucial objective, of breaking N3, is already accomplished. All that remains is to implement an arrangement of rising and falling weights that can power the applied torque, and then be re-lifted with the gained RKE.
And this is why it's a case of "PE management" - we'll need at least two, and probably three or more - asymmetric rises in momentum before we break unity, and so have sufficient excess RKE to re-lift the first driver weight to have dropped.
So, perhaps three or more drops of input GPE before we can even think about re-lifting anything.
Which would seem to suggest that our GPE-management system will need look more like an arrangement of loose weights, such as the balls shown in the first few MT diagrams, rather than a system of affixed weights constrained to a one-up / one-down regime... basically, we need a 'pool' of GPE we can draw upon for multiple successive drops before we can begin re-lifting...
...as speed rises however, so does our OU-efficiency, and hence the amount of energy we can divert to restoring that PE reserve.
Remember that i'm just trying to keep things minimally complex for now - the PE store could be something other than GPE, and the static uniform field which performs no net work could be something other than gravity..
A final thought for now - the net momentum of a system remains constant unless acted upon by an externally-applied force... right?
Precisely what we're doing here!
Who says that the externally-applied force has to perform any net work though? Here, all input work is applied from within the closed system of interacting masses. It is internally-applied work. The externally-applied field merely skews the distribution of that work, without doing any itself.
Hence we're in full agreement with Newton's 1st law.
Work through the other two, and we're in full agreement with all three, at all times..!
Mechanical over-unity - creation, ex nihilo, of momentum and energy - is built into Newton's laws plus gravity!
Although our unsung hero here remains Liebniz's vector quantity - from Newton and gravity we gain momentum, but changing that up for energy requires Liebniz..
The creation spell has two main components:
- An asymmetric distribution of momentum results in more momentum of one sign that its opposite - summing these two momenta (as by something so rudimentary as a crude elastic collision) equalises that difference to a non-zero sum - a rise in net system momentum: This momentum appears to have been drawn directly from the Higgs field responsible for mass and inertia.
- Because the value of inertia is a constant function of rest mass (since rest mass cannot change), neither does that mass's inertia.. regardless of its velocity relative to anything else. Kinetic energy evolves as the half-square of inertia times velocity, not because the value of inertia itself increases with velocity, but simply due to the practialities of Newton's 3rd law and the fact that net system momentum would normally remain constant. In other words, when we violate N3 and cause a net rise in momentum, this has absolutely no effect whatsoever on the value or strength of inertia at this new net velocity. Inertia only cares about changes in velocity, regardless of current speed. Hence the input workload remains constant - a given torque / angle will produce the same rise in net momentum, regardless of current net speed.
The energy value of that momentum relative to the stationary frame is also determined by its inertia - its resistance to deceleration - but now, relative to something objectively stationary (the ground), rather than just relatively-stationary with regards to the accelerated reference frame (the armature and small weight).
There is another question however that concerns me...
..what we're actually doing is also a one-sided gravitational interaction; the small mass is not accelerating downwards, due to the 'give' of the accelerated angular inertia instead. However, the Earth is still falling upwards, however fleetingly, with nothing to impede its attraction towards the temporarily-non-accelerating, non-reciprocating small mass..
So technically, we're extracting energy from the Higgs field, while also applying gravity to lift the whole planet, unilaterally, towards the inertially-suspended-acceleration of the small mass.
So we have two potentially-significant sources of environmental interaction / pollution: quantum, via the Higgs field, and classical, WRT Earth's net momentum. This seems a fairly non-controversial statement of self-evident facts.
Uncontrolled release of this tech would seem inexcusably reckless. If our tests prove successful and this gain principle valid, we cannot just light the touchpaper under this and scarper..
We all want to build this and get rich quick... or at least, level the economic playing field somewhat... but what did Einstein do when he realised the potential energy densities he was dealing with? We're dealing with effectively infinite energy densities!
So as much as i believe success is near-guaranteed, and imminent, we must all moderate our expectations from hereon out.
We'll be dealing with an open thermodynamic system, that is not only bigger than our desktop or garage build, but which by definition, cannot be thermodynamically closed. No free lunch, no actions without consequences.
If it's even possible to do this safely, certifying and ensuring that is going to demand more and greater authorities than ours..
It's just a wheel, plus a radial armature with a fixed weight on the end.
This time, the two inertias are not matched - the weight is 1 kg, the wheel 10 kg, so the wheel has much higher angular inertia than the 'pendulum'.
The situation is still idealised however, as a motor is being used to apply a constant angular acceleration.
FWIW i've made no calculations to derive the optimum acceleration here, i just kept trimming the value until the arm remained perfectly still.
And so, torque is applied at the axle between the pendulum and wheel, hence an inertial interaction is occuring, accelerating one against the other. There is no gravitational interaction occuring, since nothing is changing height... so no work is being performed by gravity. Hence the only workload occurring here is the inertial interaction - the mutual push between two, unmatched, angular inertias.
The crucial point being, as before, that only one mass is accelerating.
The motion of the smaller mass remains constant, per Newton's 1st law, since no net force is acting upon it.
Here we have a standing start, yet if we began instead with some angular velocity already, whatever the RPM, then all else being equal, only the wheel will be accelerated, the speed of the armature remaining constant.
(I say 'all else being equal' - obviously, once the whole thing's turning, then so is the armature's alignment to gravity, however if we apply the input torque through a symmetrical arc range around the horizontal 90° mark - ie. say between 80° and 100° - then we maintain no net input work against gravity)
But the point here is not to idealise the asymmetry, so much as highlight and underline its key steps - how it works, and why. A viable implementation doesn't need to be optimal or even particularly accurate to have a near-guaranteed chance of success. Any input torque whatsoever is going to mutually-counter-accelerate these two angular inertias. In zero-G, this will result in two equal opposing changes in angular momentum, summing to zero net change. But when repeated within a gravity field like this, those two induced angular momentum changes cannot be equal and opposite, and it becomes physically impossible to apply an equitable change in momentum! Here, this is once again idealised to a 100% asymmetry - a fully-asymmetric intertial interaction: only the wheel's momentum has been accelerated by the mutually-applied torque; we've thus raised momentum of one sign only.
So one can readily see that if, after applying this unilateral acceleration, we then suddenly locked the two components together, the armature will be accelerated, the wheel decelerated by a corresponding amount, conserving net momentum, and settling to a significantly non-zero equilibrium. The weight will drop, then rise back up and around, ready for the cycle to be repeated:
...again, this is an idealised, hence extreme, example, merely intended to demonstrate the gain principle.
A more practical realisation would be to have a massively-reduced input torque angle, of perhaps only a few degrees relative rotation, then immediately consolidating those gains and repeating the interaction with a successive mechanism. So long as all mechanisms are locked to the wheel whilst the active mechanism is applying an asymmetric distribution of momentum to it, the system is on an inexorable trajectory to OU, and within a few such interactions, will have more KE than has been spent on these angular accelerations.
Obviously, if we're intending to apply gravitational interactions as the source of these applied torques, then the name of the game is now PE management. The crucial objective, of breaking N3, is already accomplished. All that remains is to implement an arrangement of rising and falling weights that can power the applied torque, and then be re-lifted with the gained RKE.
And this is why it's a case of "PE management" - we'll need at least two, and probably three or more - asymmetric rises in momentum before we break unity, and so have sufficient excess RKE to re-lift the first driver weight to have dropped.
So, perhaps three or more drops of input GPE before we can even think about re-lifting anything.
Which would seem to suggest that our GPE-management system will need look more like an arrangement of loose weights, such as the balls shown in the first few MT diagrams, rather than a system of affixed weights constrained to a one-up / one-down regime... basically, we need a 'pool' of GPE we can draw upon for multiple successive drops before we can begin re-lifting...
...as speed rises however, so does our OU-efficiency, and hence the amount of energy we can divert to restoring that PE reserve.
Remember that i'm just trying to keep things minimally complex for now - the PE store could be something other than GPE, and the static uniform field which performs no net work could be something other than gravity..
A final thought for now - the net momentum of a system remains constant unless acted upon by an externally-applied force... right?
Precisely what we're doing here!
Who says that the externally-applied force has to perform any net work though? Here, all input work is applied from within the closed system of interacting masses. It is internally-applied work. The externally-applied field merely skews the distribution of that work, without doing any itself.
Hence we're in full agreement with Newton's 1st law.
Work through the other two, and we're in full agreement with all three, at all times..!
Mechanical over-unity - creation, ex nihilo, of momentum and energy - is built into Newton's laws plus gravity!
Although our unsung hero here remains Liebniz's vector quantity - from Newton and gravity we gain momentum, but changing that up for energy requires Liebniz..
The creation spell has two main components:
- An asymmetric distribution of momentum results in more momentum of one sign that its opposite - summing these two momenta (as by something so rudimentary as a crude elastic collision) equalises that difference to a non-zero sum - a rise in net system momentum: This momentum appears to have been drawn directly from the Higgs field responsible for mass and inertia.
- Because the value of inertia is a constant function of rest mass (since rest mass cannot change), neither does that mass's inertia.. regardless of its velocity relative to anything else. Kinetic energy evolves as the half-square of inertia times velocity, not because the value of inertia itself increases with velocity, but simply due to the practialities of Newton's 3rd law and the fact that net system momentum would normally remain constant. In other words, when we violate N3 and cause a net rise in momentum, this has absolutely no effect whatsoever on the value or strength of inertia at this new net velocity. Inertia only cares about changes in velocity, regardless of current speed. Hence the input workload remains constant - a given torque / angle will produce the same rise in net momentum, regardless of current net speed.
The energy value of that momentum relative to the stationary frame is also determined by its inertia - its resistance to deceleration - but now, relative to something objectively stationary (the ground), rather than just relatively-stationary with regards to the accelerated reference frame (the armature and small weight).
There is another question however that concerns me...
..what we're actually doing is also a one-sided gravitational interaction; the small mass is not accelerating downwards, due to the 'give' of the accelerated angular inertia instead. However, the Earth is still falling upwards, however fleetingly, with nothing to impede its attraction towards the temporarily-non-accelerating, non-reciprocating small mass..
So technically, we're extracting energy from the Higgs field, while also applying gravity to lift the whole planet, unilaterally, towards the inertially-suspended-acceleration of the small mass.
So we have two potentially-significant sources of environmental interaction / pollution: quantum, via the Higgs field, and classical, WRT Earth's net momentum. This seems a fairly non-controversial statement of self-evident facts.
Uncontrolled release of this tech would seem inexcusably reckless. If our tests prove successful and this gain principle valid, we cannot just light the touchpaper under this and scarper..
We all want to build this and get rich quick... or at least, level the economic playing field somewhat... but what did Einstein do when he realised the potential energy densities he was dealing with? We're dealing with effectively infinite energy densities!
So as much as i believe success is near-guaranteed, and imminent, we must all moderate our expectations from hereon out.
We'll be dealing with an open thermodynamic system, that is not only bigger than our desktop or garage build, but which by definition, cannot be thermodynamically closed. No free lunch, no actions without consequences.
If it's even possible to do this safely, certifying and ensuring that is going to demand more and greater authorities than ours..
- Attachments
-
- type-3_1.wm2d
- (10.9 KiB) Downloaded 127 times
-
MrVibrating
- Addict
- Posts: 2879
- Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2010 12:19 am
- Location: W3
Yeah, Seriously.
:I
If the next round of tests prove successful - that is, no net rise in input energy for successive rises in net momentum - then we should move this thread to a private forum as a matter of urgency, and proceed under mutually-agreed policy with a first rule of doing no harm...
Small working models will probably be a necessary concession to convincing authorities of their need to attend to these issues. But mobile demonstration units, not static builds with a view to taking one's home off-grid...
Because if we're successful, you do not own the contraption you've just built, because it's an open system encompassing everything else in the world. We'd only be taking momentum and energy, not 'making' it.
And even if we could put it back (running this cycle in reverse), it'll likely be too late already if we've come to that, and besides, where's that energy going to come from - we'll not have anywhere near enough fossil or mineral fuel, and all other energy techs including LENR will have been bankrupted already...
If you're smirking at these suggestions, then i'm not the one who needs a slap...
:I
If the next round of tests prove successful - that is, no net rise in input energy for successive rises in net momentum - then we should move this thread to a private forum as a matter of urgency, and proceed under mutually-agreed policy with a first rule of doing no harm...
Small working models will probably be a necessary concession to convincing authorities of their need to attend to these issues. But mobile demonstration units, not static builds with a view to taking one's home off-grid...
Because if we're successful, you do not own the contraption you've just built, because it's an open system encompassing everything else in the world. We'd only be taking momentum and energy, not 'making' it.
And even if we could put it back (running this cycle in reverse), it'll likely be too late already if we've come to that, and besides, where's that energy going to come from - we'll not have anywhere near enough fossil or mineral fuel, and all other energy techs including LENR will have been bankrupted already...
If you're smirking at these suggestions, then i'm not the one who needs a slap...
-
MrVibrating
- Addict
- Posts: 2879
- Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2010 12:19 am
- Location: W3
Right, only had time for a short soak in the bath, gotta go back to work, but just consider for a moment, Faraday's 'discs' paradox - proving that the magnetic field has its own unique, independent reference frame.. that of the vacuum flux of virtual photons mediating the EM force...!
...which means not only can we safely write gravity out of the equation...
...we also seem to have cracked reactionless propulsion....
...as well as maximising the potential efficiency, up from 9.81 J / kg-m/s of gained momentum, to an absolute theoretical peak of 500mJ / kg-m/s...
...meaning the total cost of accelerating 1 kg up to lightspeed, at 299,792,458 m/s, is precisely that figure multiplied by half, in Joules - 149,896,229 J - and thus precisely 299,792,458x OU (since the KE value of 1 kg at C given by 1/2mV^2 = 44,937,758,936,840,900 J, which, divided by our input energy of 149,896,229 J = 299792458.00000012008307427133474)!!!
So erm.. this appears to be our Star Trek moment, guys!?
We could explore the galaxy, or even travel to Andromeda and beyond, yet still return within a few years' mission time. At least, from the on-board perspective. Take it too far and Sol will be long gone by the time you get back..
But yeah, one small step at a time i suppose..
For now, all i wish to submit is that if we input say, 10 kg-m/s of momentum between two relatively-stationary inertias, while one or both of those effective values of 'resistance to acceleration' is augmented by some other, externally applied static uniform force field, then we may obtain all 10 kg-m/s of that momentum as one sign only, and thus a net rise in an otherwise closed system..
Ladies and gentleman... it is my contention that 10 > 0.
:I
...which means not only can we safely write gravity out of the equation...
...we also seem to have cracked reactionless propulsion....
...as well as maximising the potential efficiency, up from 9.81 J / kg-m/s of gained momentum, to an absolute theoretical peak of 500mJ / kg-m/s...
...meaning the total cost of accelerating 1 kg up to lightspeed, at 299,792,458 m/s, is precisely that figure multiplied by half, in Joules - 149,896,229 J - and thus precisely 299,792,458x OU (since the KE value of 1 kg at C given by 1/2mV^2 = 44,937,758,936,840,900 J, which, divided by our input energy of 149,896,229 J = 299792458.00000012008307427133474)!!!
So erm.. this appears to be our Star Trek moment, guys!?
We could explore the galaxy, or even travel to Andromeda and beyond, yet still return within a few years' mission time. At least, from the on-board perspective. Take it too far and Sol will be long gone by the time you get back..
But yeah, one small step at a time i suppose..
For now, all i wish to submit is that if we input say, 10 kg-m/s of momentum between two relatively-stationary inertias, while one or both of those effective values of 'resistance to acceleration' is augmented by some other, externally applied static uniform force field, then we may obtain all 10 kg-m/s of that momentum as one sign only, and thus a net rise in an otherwise closed system..
Ladies and gentleman... it is my contention that 10 > 0.
:I
-
Silvertiger
- Devotee
- Posts: 1059
- Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 1:12 pm
- Location: Henderson, KY
Mr V, that's good stuff. I don't know about you, but I thought of something similar to that when I first started looking in 2012. I imagined what would happen if a ball was set on the edge of a wheel and started rolling, causing the wheel to rotate, but never fell off and just rolled in place. Anyway, that's what this reminds me of. :)
-
cloud camper
- Devotee
- Posts: 1083
- Joined: Tue Mar 15, 2011 12:20 am
re: Plying CF as pseudo-inertia to scam N3
OK Mr V, definitely don't want to do any harm or bring any negative vibes to the thread. We want only success for once!
Got a first pass on a four mechanism wheel with eight reaction and four timing weights. And we actually have an approximate approximation on the needed weight motions.
Trying not to introduce any "buts" to the excitement however at this point it is a fairly klunky arrangement as the timing weights tend to be immobile against a stop until the "cam over" point and then the reaction weights move quickly, and the timing weights tend to bounce off their stops causing wasted back and forth motion in the reaction weights.
Possibly if the wheel gets up to speed, a lot of this will smooth out.
Seems to need dampers or at least springs to soften/slow the reactions although it's still only a first attempt at a mechanism. Hate to use them as that will be energy lost to heat.
At this point, the timing weights are the same 4 lb weight of the reaction weights so there is definitely some overhead involved.
This "cam over" snapping action - basically just an inverted pendulum rotating to the 12:00 position then wanting to accelerate too hard down to the 3:00 position where it bounces off a stop - may be the best we can do in a statorless mechanism. There are other mechanisms to try - I hope!
The whole idea of a statorless mechanism is to eliminate a back emf path to earth but (crap sorry there's that word) I don't see how to avoid a gravity based reference for the timing weight mechanism.
So no magic acceleration has occurred yet but definitely not ruling it out at this point!
Got a first pass on a four mechanism wheel with eight reaction and four timing weights. And we actually have an approximate approximation on the needed weight motions.
Trying not to introduce any "buts" to the excitement however at this point it is a fairly klunky arrangement as the timing weights tend to be immobile against a stop until the "cam over" point and then the reaction weights move quickly, and the timing weights tend to bounce off their stops causing wasted back and forth motion in the reaction weights.
Possibly if the wheel gets up to speed, a lot of this will smooth out.
Seems to need dampers or at least springs to soften/slow the reactions although it's still only a first attempt at a mechanism. Hate to use them as that will be energy lost to heat.
At this point, the timing weights are the same 4 lb weight of the reaction weights so there is definitely some overhead involved.
This "cam over" snapping action - basically just an inverted pendulum rotating to the 12:00 position then wanting to accelerate too hard down to the 3:00 position where it bounces off a stop - may be the best we can do in a statorless mechanism. There are other mechanisms to try - I hope!
The whole idea of a statorless mechanism is to eliminate a back emf path to earth but (crap sorry there's that word) I don't see how to avoid a gravity based reference for the timing weight mechanism.
So no magic acceleration has occurred yet but definitely not ruling it out at this point!
Last edited by cloud camper on Mon Oct 30, 2017 12:33 am, edited 2 times in total.
Re: re: Plying CF as pseudo-inertia to scam N3
A good example of the conversion of PKE to RKE.Fletcher wrote:http://www.keelynet.com/energy/mptoy.htm
If you use one of those charity vortex boxes you should find that the LKE (Linear Kinetic Energy)with which a coin leaves the box is greater than it should be.
I'm confident that if people did a proper scientific investigation of the Ranque-Hilsch tube they would find that excess energy was generated there also.
Who is she that cometh forth as the morning rising, fair as the moon, bright as the sun, terribilis ut castrorum acies ordinata?
-
cloud camper
- Devotee
- Posts: 1083
- Joined: Tue Mar 15, 2011 12:20 am
Re: re: Plying CF as pseudo-inertia to scam N3
Just wondering if it is possible to totally eliminate a stator.
If everything turns with the wheel is that good enough?
Or if we still require a gravity reference for a timing mechanism does that screw the pooch as it were?
To be more specific have we really eliminated all back emf paths to earth?
If everything turns with the wheel is that good enough?
Or if we still require a gravity reference for a timing mechanism does that screw the pooch as it were?
To be more specific have we really eliminated all back emf paths to earth?