Plying CF as pseudo-inertia to scam N3

[cloud camper]

OK Mr V - tried screen to gif.



I applied a CW torque for 6 seconds and although there is some unwanted
bouncing, no tendency to accelerate is observed.

But this is just a first attempt, will work on interconnecting the timing mechanism to try and dampen out bouncing of the levers.

Haven't given up yet!

[cloud camper]

All right - on to the next hopeful improvement. Should possibly eliminate some of the bouncing off the stops and poorly controlled movements but we'll see.

Interconnected the timing mechanisms and I think all will agree - looking very MT138 ish at this point!

And I believe we can see why the axle might be full of holes.

Where to go from here????



Oh yeah, Happy Halloween everyone!

[MrVibrating]

Right, this is proper naff and messy for now, but just trying out ideas...



..the green mass is the input GPE, which applies a mutual torque between the red mass and the wheel, via the planar linkage.


So i guess i could refine this, clean it up a bit, and start taking momentum measurements.. although it does look like it's doing the job already, from stationary at least.. still, it's only the first half of a full cycle - if there is more momentum produced of one sign over the other, it still needs to be consolidated and shared evenly to the rest of the system.... the ideal 'end state' of a full cycle would see everything rotating together at equal speed, with nothing bouncing around inside..

[MrVibrating]

OK Mr V - tried screen to gif. Can't get it to come up directly but the link works!

https://s20.postimg.org/l4vs6hg8t/e7bab ... 27c95d.gif

I applied a CW torque for 6 seconds and although there is some unwanted
bouncing, no tendency to accelerate is observed.

But this is just a first attempt, will work on interconnecting the timing mechanism to try and dampen out bouncing of the levers.

Haven't given up yet!

Cloud Camper WOW, that is incredible!

To get img tags to work, remove the "S" from the "httpS" part of the addy.. everyone's gotta see this!

Superb stuff, really... but this is also exactly what i feared - that talented people will waste good efforts on ill-fated designs - not that i doubt the maths, but simply whether or not any prospective mechanism is really doing what the maths are..

Your design here has the same issue as mine above - in my case it's the input GPE, which is forming a 3-way inertial interaction... which may or may not preclude the intended outcome, but it complicates it.. similarly, on yours, the weights are torqued against the main system body...

..but the only system i've mathematically proven has no other intervening inertia between that of the interacting masses. It's just a 2-way inertial interaction, at least during the critical phase when only one mass is accelerating.

Also, i only tested a mutual acceleration, not an actual collision.. if we can also generate the effect with elastic collisions in freefall, all the better, but i haven't tested for this yet..

I think that getting this to work - actually accessing this free energy gradient - is going to take slow, careful work, analysing each step empirically to ensure its doing its job, and how well or not.

At the same time, it's equally possible some bright spark could make a break for the finish line and beat us to it, especially using the first example i described of two linear masses, because it's so crude and easy to follow..

Obviously Bessler didn't have carbon fibre storksbills, and it may be inevitable that there has to be some intervening mass between the two key inertias... but it's absolutely essential, at least as far as i'm currently aware, that the two masses are interacting as cleanly as possible, ie. being forced to move against one another's inertia, not against that of a third, intermediary inertia such as that of the net system. On the contrary, our interaction is only allowed to interact with the rest of the system after the mutual acceleration has caused the momentum asymmetry. Then we can collide it with the main system's inertia, and so adding / consolidating the gain generated during the exclusively 2-way mutual acceleration...


Does that parse? More paragraph breaks? Sorry i absolutely do not want to sound condescending, i'm sure you've already got the concept and just got side-tracked in trying to mechanise it (happens to me all the time)...

[MrVibrating]

All right - on to the next hopeful improvement. Should possibly eliminate some of the bouncing off the stops and poorly controlled movements but we'll see.

Interconnected the timing mechanisms and I think all will agree - looking very MT138 ish at this point!

And I believe we can see why the axle might be full of holes.

Where to go from here????

https://s20.postimg.org/sy083lawt/5b68e ... 646ac3.gif

Oh yeah, Happy Halloween everyone!

Yes. happy fake commercial spooky day everyone! Listening to the Yanks in the lift earlier complaining that we don't do it properly, that it's such a big thing over there.. it's all fake! Just another excuse to go on a bender wearing a bra on your head. Glad me doorbell's busted..

But awesome work mate, honestly, you're much better at WM than me!

We're pretty much on the same page it looks like, yours is just much more advanced. But whether either are doing what the maths are doing is what we need to determine.

The central exploit is simply this asymmetric division of input momentum. It's simmable, it looks eminently practical for a real-world experiment.. but it all hinges on the masses accelerating, or not, against their partners' resistance to acceleration... each mass moving because the other one doesn't want to, accelerating against one anothers' mutual reluctance to accelerate... this is the key condition.

That, whilst falling.. or just descending? Again, more clarification required - i only tested the former.

Really, truly impressive work mate, but please take it easy! You're turning out top-notch stuff, but without this incremental checking of progress at every step, empirically verifying that it's cooking the books the right way, it's jumping the gun..

[MrVibrating]

..another criticism - and i'm just pointing it out before someone else does - is that if we simply reverse the interaction on the ascending side, so applying a mutual attractive force, the inverse interaction would see the lower mass's motion remain constant, while the upper one accelerated down to meet it..

..in other words, an asymmetric inertial interaction back in the opposite direction!

This would of course be a silly thing to do, unless there were some cunning plan behind it.. not least because a second, opposing asymmetric inertial exchange is actually the only way to get rid of the excess momentum we made from the first one... in other words, provided we don't explicitly undo it like this, it's in the bag, and any regular elastic collision can be used to bring them back together...

..as noted previously, this would mean that your reciprocating mechanisms would need to be arranged at 90°, not 180° angles relative to one another, so that the reset stroke occurred at horizontal; its resulting momentum distribution unaffected by gravity.

Were it not for these two details though, we'd be ready for some interesting results.

No rush, give it a few more days, we'll get there..

[MrVibrating]

Don't want to interrupt the flow of Oystein's fascinating thread, but the pendu-wheel came up:



...and what i see now, looking at that particular image, is a pair of interacting angular inertias, one of which is subject to gravity... the key ingredients of an asymmetric inertial interaction.

If anyone does decipher a description of a mechanism or principle, then this right here is the only possible useful interpretation of it. Only an effective N3 break can explain his wheel's performance, and this is one, and it simply reduces to an inertial interaction in which one or both inertias are subject to an externally-applied uniform static force field, during either the outbound or inbound leg of their closed-cycle interaction. The externally-applied field imposes an additional 'resistance to acceleration' - a psuedo-inertia - resulting in the other inertia receiving a greater share of momentum than it would've otherwise... potentially, all of it.

The energy cost of obtaining this momentum gain is simply the aforementioned mutual acceleration, and since the interacting masses are always stationary relative to each other at the beginning of each cycle, and inertia itself is unchanged by absolute velocity, this efficiency is constant - the same input energy buys the same rise in momentum, regardless of rising net speed.

Whereas the energy value of that accumulated momentum, relative to the stationary reference frame, grows via the 1/2mV^2 standard.

From a standing start, allowing for friction, it takes five such asymmetric inertial interactions to break input / output energy symmetry.

The exploit is simply using an externally-applied static field to passively augment the effective values of 'inertia', in terms of resistance to an internally-applied, mutual acceleration..

That breaks momentum symmetry. Do it five times in a row while accumulating the resulting momentum gains, and you've broken energy symmetry.

Two inertias, and gravity. That's the secret mechanism. The prime mover. You could maybe add "rotation" in there but it's kinda implicit..

[daanopperman]

Hi cc ,

At the top of the page your gif , it is turning the wrong direction .
When the weight pair on the left open up , the CG moves towards the center pivot , while the rh weights move away from the pivot , overbalancing the unit .
When I proposed this idea , and stated that the weight pair just float in mid air while that are closed , it was not understood , but the fact remains it is the same as a cross bar with a weight at each end where the CG is on the wheel pivot .
While the weights are all in the closed position , all is in balance , but opening one pair with almost no effort ( the weights is in a counter balanced state ) brings about a gigantic OB .
This arrangement does have its drawbacks in this configuration .
When the mechanism rotate only a small amount , one of the pair of weight's pivot point on both sides will shift closer to the wheel pivot , causing that pair to become out of balance with the resulting out of balance pair .
At this stage you have the pair of weights each on it's own pivot , the further this 2 pivots is apart , the greater the tendency to become unbalanced .
If you take a pair of pivots on the left side at 9 o clock , and move the wheel CW , it is obvious that the top pivot is moving to the rh side , while the bottom pivot is moving to the lh side , iow away from the wheel pivot . As these 2 weight's is supposed to be in balance to be able to open and close the pair with minimal force ,
This is much more observable when the weights is at 11 .The top pivot is now almost in the centre of the wheel at 12 while the bottom weight centre is hovering around 10 . This causes the weight pair to go out of balance and become inefficient as a OB mechanism .
The antidote is to have both of the weights on then same pivot , one behind the other , this facilitate the weights to always be in balance no matter in which orientation the wheel is
In your sim , have both pair of weights horizontal ,as soon as you rotate the wheel cw ,, you will find that that pair is no longer in balance with it self and drop down uncontrollable , making the closing later on very hard .

Mr V ,

In the gif from cc ,

The pair's of weights is coupled via counter rotating gears , if one moves up the other is moving down , if you stop the trailing weight while the wheel is in rotation , the leading weight has to accelerate at 2 times , thus transferring momentum from one weight to the other without imparting back torque to the wheel , This gives a double bonus , for you have a OB on one side , plus momentum transfer from one weight of the 2 pairs , so 2 momentum transfers per revolution .
If the trailing weight of the pair of weights that is at 6 is retarded , it will stay open till 12 , where the leading weight is then retarded , to bring them into position for the OB cycle on the rh side for a CWturning wheel .

[MrVibrating]

Hi Daan

For any prospective perpetually-overbalancing scheme, we can basically ignore the details of any proposed mechanism, look through it, and see that all that really matters is motions of the weights with respect to gravity. Because neither gravity or rest mass change over time, and the weights must travel in closed loops, the input force * distance, when the weights are rising, can only ever be equal to the output F * d when they're falling... there simply is no energy gradient available, regardless of how the weights move.

Unfortunately, exactly this same input / output energy symmetry exists for inertial interactions (ie. accelerations, decelerations, collisions and momentum transfers), because again, we're using rest mass, which is time-invariant, and hence momentum and mechanical energy are always conserved.

It is fundamentally impossible to create momentum and energy from either gravitational interactions, or mechanical interactions, alone. Both systems are totally airtight. No exploits are possible in either.

What i have found however is that a hidden energy gradient does arise when both systems are combined at the same time, with a gravity field superimposed upon the inertial interaction; we can deploy gravity as "psuedo-inertia", boosting the effective resistance to acceleration of a mass suspended against it, and so causing an excess of momentum to be imparted to some other mass when a force is applied between them.

Since this inertia-boost was only a temporary effect of gravity, once the two masses have rotated around to a horizontal alignment relative to gravity, they can be moved sideways without any interference from gravity, and so any subsequent momentum exchanges are equitable again.

Hence rotating through vertical to horizontal and back causes a change in the effective resistances to acceleration / deceleration of the masses, thus varying their 'effective inertia', without requiring either inertia or gravity themselves to change over time, and so facilitating a series of inertial interactions in which the distribution of momentum is not equal and opposite between interacting masses, and so do not cancel, instead summing to a non-zero remainder.

The energy cost of generating momentum this way is not speed-dependent, because it's simply an inertial workload, and inertia does not rise with speed, and so the energy cost of this momentum is constant per cycle, as RPM's rise due to the ever-accumulating excess momentum from each successive cycle.

However this rising net system velocity is also adding velocity to the inertial interactions inside, and so even though their internal energy cost hasn't risen, the external energy value of those interactions is boosted by the net system's current ambient velocity.

Inside the wheel, the interacting inertias begin each interaction stationary relative to the wheel and to one another, whereas externally, each interaction begins at whatever the current speed of the wheel, relative to us watching from the outside. Because speed is a fundamental parameter in the kinetic energy equation (KE = 1/2 mass * velocity squared), the same interaction has two different, mutually-irreconcilable KE's at the same time, as measured internally, versus externally.

To us, these two different KE's are being treated as input cost, versus output value. In other words we've broken energy symmetry, by breaking momentum symmetry.

This is a potential energy gradient. An apparently-free one..

[sleepy]

Hey daanopperman,
You and I have obviously walked parts of the same path before.I wasn't gonna take the time to explain what you just explained,but I'm glad it got explained.

Mr.V,
This sounds stupid,but wouldn't the two halves of your wheel have to turn at different speeds to take advantage of 1 weight accelerating? It sounds even stupider now that I've said it out loud,but the weight being accelerated can't accelerate if it's bound to the wheel,because it would have to accelerate the mechanism as the mechanism accelerates the weight,thus causing the weight to move away from the mechanism at exactly the same speed. Like the donkey pulling the cart,chasing a carrot that's tied to the cart.

[MrVibrating]

@Sleepy Hi mate - honestly, i don't know how i'm going to apply the mutual acceleration, i don't know how i'm gonna harvest the KE gain to restore the PE for that mutual acceleration, i really don't have the first clue about what mechanism to try at this stage.

All i know is what i've shown in the simplified examples, and accompanying maths. If we can design a mechanism to perform these motions, there's a definite gain on offer. So it's a design challenge, and no longer a theoretical challenge. We know what the design needs to accomplish:

- cause an asymmetric distribution of momentum by augmenting inertia with gravity

- collide that momentum with the rest of the system in order to harvest and accumulate it

- repeat those steps at least 5 times and you now have enough RKE to repay all the PE thus far used, with plenty left over..

That's really all i know for now. I see no reason it should be fundamentally impossible - i'm not invoking any inherently-conflicting requirements, so it is just a matter of trawling though the maths and trying to copy it, as closely as possible, with physical mechanisms..

[MrVibrating]

OK very rough again, still testing out prospective mechanisms, so this isn't intended as any kind of complete system yet..

Remember the first interaction i tested - a vertical acceleration between two linear inertias in free-fall? Well suppose we took a couple of scissorjacks, stuck a weight on both ends of each one, and then attach them to the vertically-swinging yellow beams here:





..to see how useful this kind of arrangement might be, i've used a motor to accelerate it at a constant 2 RPM / second, just to see at what speed it stops functioning usefully.

Encouragingly, that turns out to be right in the same range as Besler's one-directional wheels; about 55 RPM..!



So in this application, the scissorjacks would need to fire, pushing each weight pair apart vertically, as the jack they're attached to enters its free-fall phase.

At the bottom of its stroke, the lower mass, possessing all or most of the applied momentum, would then strike the lower stop, transferring that momentum gain to the net system, including the opposite, rising, inactive mechanism..

So far, this seems faithfull to the maths... However obvious questions remain - if we use spring-loaded scissorjacks, then how and when to re-load them?


Another key issue in the design considerations, which will in turn impact upon the above PE-mamagement question, regards the fact that we need five interactions before we can reload all of those springs..

So suppose we only had one full mechanism cycle per revolution of the net system, ie. a wheel with just one full mechanism mounted - we'd thus need 5 full revolutions to perform 5 interactions.

On the other hand, if we had 5 interactions per cycle, we could repay all our startup PE following the first revolution.

Alternatively, if we went up to say 10 interactions per cycle - so ten full mechanisms at evenly-spaced angles of rotation - then we could repay all of our startup PE within the first 180° of rotation...


But that's getting a bit ahead for now. In the meantime i'm just gonna concentrate on the first few steps of generating the momentum asymmetry, and then transferring it to the net system via a collision... even if that means temporarilly automating everything with scripts..

[MrVibrating]

OK here's the above rotor with weights overlayed, just as a visual reference:





...so as that yellow beam drops into freefall, a mutual acceleration is applied between the red and green masses, forcing the red one upwards, against the inertia of the green one being thrust downwards.

Again, any magnitude of force that results in a subsequent displacement will produce a corresponding momentum gain, but the optimum, using gravity as in this case, is a mutual 2 G force, such that each mass experiences 1 G in opposing directions.

Under this condition, all of the momentum input between the two masses will be manifested on the green mass only, hence we've only input momentum of one sign...

...and when this uni-directional momentum strikes the lower stop, it will be equalised, and spread throughout every sinew of the body / net system (ie. including the inactive mechanism rising on the opposite side)!

So this should give everyone a clear understanding of the engineering challenge:

- a force has to be applied between these masses whilst they're in free-fall

- this costs some energy, either from a PE store or elsewhere

- this creates momentum ex nihilo, raising that of the net system

- the cost of applying this mutual acceleration is constant, regardless of speed

- the energy value of the accumulating momentum is a function of speed


- therefore there is some low threshold speed beyond which the system has more KE than the PE provided to it



So, we need to access that RKE of the net system, in order to recharge the PE powering the mutual accelerations... but we need to do so without the aid of a stator...

Which can only leave us with CF as the remaining option, since this too rises with speed, and doesn't require torquing against a stator in order to feed energy back internally to the springs or GPE loads or whatever powers this mutual acceleration between the red / green inertias..

[MrVibrating]

..again, for the purposes of anyone coming to this late, this is not the only mechanical approach to this asymmetry!


I've shown a couple of alternatives already, but in principle the "green" inertia could simply be that of the net system, being torqued against the upwards (red) inertia - with basically the same result, that all of the input momentum can be applied directly to the net system as one sign only.

The only reason i'm currently doing it this way is because it seems visually easier to follow the maths. But if you can grasp the underlying principle then you can use your own initiative in working out how, and to what, to apply it..

[cloud camper]

Hey Daan - yeah the whole point of this scheme is to completely ignore any attempt at gravitational over balancing and just try for a gain based on inertial reactions. The idea is to try and accelerate a weight relative to the rest of the system without creating an equal and opposite reaction on the remainder of the system that would cost energy and slow the wheel.

This would hopefully create an exception to Newton's third law that every physical action creates an equal and opposite reaction.

The extra energy would come from the KE=1/2mv^2 law where the kinetic energy goes up by the SQUARE of velocity. It seems like a great theory, the trick is figuring out how to harvest that energy efficiently in a mechanical system and create a reset so that the operation continues.

We need to then collide the speedy red weight (in my gif) with another mechanism while it still has maximum KE and then use that energy to accelerate the wheel.

I believe this is exactly what Bessler is trying to show us in MT138.

Stay tuned or join in the fun!