Blood From Stone

[MrVibrating]

Hi MrVibrating,
I appreciate your work, great thingking and analysing,

but you always work with one System.
You need an energy excange from one System to an other. Interacting.
So you Need two Systems. a slower and a faster one, then swap.

With a single System you have no Chance.

Thanks, and yes, you're quite right, in that there has to be a cyclic acceleration or deceleration of mass inside the rotating system - just as a general point, an "inertial interaction" implies two or more interacting inertias / masses / systems of mass or whatever. My goal is asymmetric inertial interactions, implying two interacting inertias, a cyclical asymmetric exchange of momentum between them, resulting in a rising net system velocity.

So here, i've got this crossbar thingy, and a wheel, a time-dependent momentum asymmetry and a bang to re-equalise the speed difference, torquing the net system by its own bootstraps a little way each cycle..

Small steps but progress..

[MrVibrating]

the Impact is only there to arrange the weights.

I'm fairly certain the impacts are there to distribute a momentum rise that is at first manifested upon a lone mass - ie. the purpose of collisions is to consolidate an initial asymmetric distribution of momentum into a net rise.

What happens during the collision is that asymmetrically-apportioned momentum and counter-momentum are recombined to yield a non-zero sum, and thus net rise. Every bang is a bit more momentum in the bank.

[Georg Künstler]

Hi MrVibrating,

you are just answering what I had asked the board a Long time ago.

I had developed a construction called Blue drum some years ago.

No one could answer why this effect happened. for technicians it was an construction error.
The corrected Version did not run anymore.

That was the reason to develope my Bessler Wheel.

[MrVibrating]

Crazy thought - i've tried using a gravitating mass as a stator, using gravity to absorb counter-momentum etc., but i've just thought of a condition that sounds like exactly the sort of thing i should have tried already.. only i don't recall having done so..

Suppose our stator mass is a shrinking MoI - ie. using inertial torque to absorb counter-momentum!

So we have a motor, sandwiched between a 'rotor' and 'stator' - actually two equal angular inertias; only, the rotor is a solid disc, whilst the stator is composed of radially translating mass (ie. its mass can be pulled inwards while it rotates).

The interaction begins with the system in uniform motion, everything rotating together at equal speed, hence rotor and stator are stationary relative to each other.

The stator mass is then moved inwards, applying a positive inertial torque that wants to accelerate it.

Countering this however, the motor applies an equal counter-torque, preventing the stator's angular acceleration, and instead accelerating the rotor.

That it. That's the actual thought experiment finished. Now it needs analysing..


Gonna have at this tomoz.. but an interesting inter-reaction here!

[sleepy]

So you're going to use some energy to accelerate the stator. Then you're going to use more energy to push back against the stator with the motor. Then you're going to transfer the energy that you created to the rotor. This sounds like a very complicated way of making less energy than you will need to pull it off over and over again. I know you consider this type of thing a pesky detail, but it's not going away. You will need an energy source to do what you are proposing, and it's gonna be expensive.

[Georg Künstler]

Hi Sleepy
we have an energy source, which is endless for our human being.
We have only make use of it. And it is cheap, and everywhere available.

So MrVibrating is on the right track creating more and more asymmetry in his rotating system.
He is using a relative movement, which is normally not used in machines today.
It is a speed difference between two systems during rotation.
(also used in saw buzz...).
When I see it right, he try to use the centripetal force.

With his parameter 'gravity on' he will find where the force has to be applied to extract the energy from gravity.

His rotating system is faster then 9,81...
He will fulfill one of the important rules with his rotating system, a fast up and a slow down, movement. Give Gravity time to act.
You will see.

[MrVibrating]

So you're going to use some energy to accelerate the stator. Then you're going to use more energy to push back against the stator with the motor. Then you're going to transfer the energy that you created to the rotor. This sounds like a very complicated way of making less energy than you will need to pull it off over and over again. I know you consider this type of thing a pesky detail, but it's not going away. You will need an energy source to do what you are proposing, and it's gonna be expensive.

Hi mate - if you check the results, the net energy's neutral, but in a really interesting way, generating 1.5 J of RKE from 0.5 J of torque times angle.

This OU efficiency is caused by the divergence between the PE vs KE reference frames, in turn caused by an effective N3 violation.

Net momentum's constant however, so the system's locked down and cannot gain net energy. Establishing the requirements for generating a momentum asymmetry from gravity is the purpose of this thread. The reason i don't mind paying energy for momentum is that if it's asymmetrically distributed, the PE cost decouples from the KE benefit, beyond some threshold of velocity. You can only get mechanical OU from a momentum asymmetry, so it's hard for most people to envisage what it could even look like. Take careful note of the PE to KE efficiency of the motor in that last experiment, because that is what mechanical OU looks like..

..and so if you're not attuned to the dependence of CoE upon CoM, the prospect of actually paying input energy for an excess output energy may seem strange and foreign, but for "OU" it's kind of the whole gig. An effective N3 break buys us cheap momentum, that we can cash in at its standard KE value to buy GPE or whatever..

All the key parts of the process have been tested successfully, with the exception of accumulating momentum gained this way. If we can crack that final hurdle, KE gains will basically just happen - once you've bust N3, you literally cannot move without creating or destroying KE. This is why i'm measuring input and output energies so obsessively anytime i get something that looks like a potential N3 break. Gotta speculate to accumulate..

[MrVibrating]

In the below sim, the actuators have been programmed to extend the MoI when the weight is falling, and retract it when it's rising, using this function:

(if (Body[5].v.y > 0, (3 -((Body[5].p.y) * 0.5)), (3 -((Body[5].p.y) * 0.5))))

..where 'body 5' is the green weight; if its vertical velocity is positive it must be descending, so the actuators extend proportionally to the changing height of the weight, and likewise retract again when y-velocity goes negative as the weight rises back up.



..one cycle looped twice with a pause on the first run to show the results in progress.

The system begins with 0.5 rad/s angular velocity and 2 p of angular momentum, and then the change in MoI and angular momentum is plotted as gravity accelerates and then decelerates the system.

The green weight is 1 kg, at 2 meter radius, so has a fixed MoI of 4.

The variable MoI (red) is 2 * 0.5 kg masses, so again 1 kg total, varying between 2 meters and zero radius, so has an MoI between zero and 4.

Hence when fully extended, red and green angular inertias are equal, and the net system MoI is varying between 4 and 8.


The intention here is to see if it's possible to accumulate momentum from gravity without employing collisions; using only an MoI variation, and a weight.

And so MoI is increasing as the weight falls, applying a braking inertial torque thus increasing the time spent gravitating, and thus the momentum yeild from this particular drop.

Then as the weight's rising, MoI is shrinking, applying a positive torque that decreases the time spent gravitating..

..at least, that's the objective! Logically, if we gain more momentum from gravity on the way down than we lose on the way back up.. quids in! Not interested in the energy cost for now, so long as we can just bag any net momentum at all from a closed-loop trajectory in an otherwise closed-system of interacting gravitating masses..

As you can see, as-is, the system is not doing what i hoped it would do - the total change in momentum for lift and drop is perfectly symmetrical.


Not sure what conclusions to draw for now - is the objective unsound, or just this attempt at achieving it?

I suspect collisions are a necessary step in the process of consolidating momentum gains from gravity - mathematically, that technique works anyway.

But the simple logic of slowing your fall and accelerating your lift, thus causing a differential in the time spent gravitating (and thus exchanging momentum with gravity), just seems too compelling - i honestly half-expected the above system to work...!

What needs adding - what else could be tried (ie. bar collisions)?

How's about speeding up the MoI changes - making them sudden transitions; extending fully before falling, and retracting fully before rising? Perhaps the current smooth transition is what's enforcing the symmetry..?

I'll try knock up a version where the MoI extends quickly as the weight passes TDC, and retracts equally quickly at BDC - that way, MOI should be high for most of the drop time, and low for most of the lift time. Changing MoI quickly while the weight's at TDC or BDC, it's mostly moving horizontally rather than vertically so it's the optimal window for generating an asymmetry... here, i'm spending equal time changing MoI when rising and falling... so let's try asymmetric timing with the MoI and see if that helps..

Back tomorrow, hopefully with better luck..

[Georg Künstler]

Hi MrVibrating,

What needs adding - what else could be tried (ie. bar collisions)?

Some years ago I tried to break the symmetry with a loose axle.
The mass was able to swing in a longhole.

With this function you can achieve a swinging in the room, up and down, left and right in one go. And also the reversal swing.

When turning this system slowly, then you can see the reaction of gravity on it.

During one turn, the eccentric mass has the possibility to move out on one side and to move inwards after 180 degrees.

This is causing a vibration. It will be your first system.

The second system is a ring around the first system.
If the first and the second system will collided you will get a transfer of the moments.

doing this, you will achieve a fast lift of the weights and a slow down, so gravity has time to act. you have broken the symmetry by a cyclical transfer.

[MrVibrating]

It was late (plus i'm a complete div) - the fix was simply to rotate the synchronisation 90° (duh!); now it's finally doing what i originally envisaged:



Yay! We're proper hoovering up momentum from gravity now!

Note well that we haven't actually broken N3 (that's impossible), hence what you are witnessing, if built in the real world, is altering Earth's resting momentum state.


The system is gaining more momentum - from gravity - as the weight falls, than it's paying back when it rises.

But momentum is always distributed symmetrically between the accelerated mass and source of the applied force - so if we're adding 'downwards' momentum to our descending weight, we're likewise adding equal 'upwards' momentum to Earth.


Please, anyone - now you can actually see it, argue or agree with me? This point is more important than our energy needs - the concern is that the above process can only be changing Earth's resting momentum state.. and thus potentially destroying all life in the universe as far as we know.. Weighty issue for a Tuesday afternoon but this demands open discussion and just friggin' acknowledgement that it ain't merely some crackpot Chicken Licken psychosis... Anyone? Bueller..?


Either way, this is a tremendous breakthrough in our quest - we can now robustly accumulate momentum from gravity (can't emphasise that enough), which really is the single most pivotal detail for establishing OU...


All that remains now is the final decoupling of input to output energies - if it hasn't happened already! I'll start pulling the integrals ASAP; wanna check the amount of momentum (from gravity!) that we get each cycle is constant - it should be since there's no such thing as terminal velocity in vacuum; ie. the ambient rate of change of momentum of a gravitating system is 9.80665 p/s per kg of gravitating mass irrespective of whatever the current velocity...

...so for example if we're getting a 1 p rise in momentum from the first cycle, we'd expect the same rise for every cycle thereafter, no matter how fast the RPM's get.. so this detail needs establishing.

Then we want to know the energy cost of that momentum; principally, does it square with velocity, per ½mV², because even if it does increase with velocity, unless it does so by that exact amount then we still have a threshold velocity beyond which we're OU.

Since the workload here is against centrifugal force, which does increase with RPM's, the cost seems inevitably to be speed-dependent, so let's not get too hopeful just yet..

..which brings me to my final point for this post - we're cyclically gaining momentum (from gravity!) without collisions, which is great, however in the original mathematical solution, collisions served two purposes - consolidating momentum gains, but also decoupling input and output energies...

The reason it also does the latter job is because in the maths solution, when the accelerated mass undergoes an inelastic collision with the non-accelerated mass, sharing its momentum gain back with it and thus accelerating the net system, spontaneously doubling the inertia that a given quantity of momentum is distributed into like this quarters the corresponding KE, which means the first cycle's 75% inefficient, but that efficiency climbs by 25% each cycle thereafter, so the second one's only 50% inefficient, the third, 25%, and by the fourth cycle we hit unity - equal energy in as out. On the fifth such cycle, we hit 125% efficiency, and from thereon the sky's the limit.

But point is, that's five collisions to OU. I found a further trick that can knock it down to just 1 collision, but that's still not zero collisions..

Hence don't expect too much from the energy results we're obtaining above - it's probably not OU yet..

..but we have just passed a truly momentous milestone..! (and look at it! it's soo simple! love it!) Endless momentum, on tap, in an otherwise 'closed-system' of interacting masses! Just a gravitational interaction, coupled with an MoI variation.. and nowt else! These two elementary raw ingredients, working in unison to produce a result that challenges the most basic tenets of physics, and - even in it's current, presumably non-OU state - appears to be propelling the 'net system' of rotor plus Earth through the vacuum of space, the whole system essentially 'falling' through Earth's own gravity field, gaining momentum from it along the way.. eat your heart out Alcubierre!

Anyone left who still doesn't believe magic is real?

[MrVibrating]

..so, it's kind of a gravity-powered reluctance motor, type stuff, huh? I mean the actuators can't add angular momentum...

All this time (years!) i've been looking for an interaction - this mythical 'asymmetric inertial interaction' - that you would perform between two masses (two interacting inertias more formerly), that would gain momentum which you can then share back with the net system (the wheel) and so use the resulting KE gains to bank GPE and close-loop.

And then it just dawned on me with increasing clarity that the gravitational interaction and the asymmetric inertial interaction had to be one and the same interaction!

...and again, where was the rising weight in B.'s one-way wheels when they were tied off stationary? It's always seemed necessarily to be perched in a paradoxical situation, if it exists, since there can be no energy or momentum advantage in a static system. The current approach would seem to potentially resolve that paradox.

But hey less text-wall, more numbers eh..

[ME]

"Please, anyone - now you can actually see it, argue or agree with me?

Sorry, but the only thing we see are simulation tricks. There's nothing to argue about and nothing to agree with.
Well, we could argue about the simulation addition while ignoring (or falsely assuming) their energy requirements.

"we can now robustly accumulate momentum from gravity "

..but, 'we' can't.

As usual your stuff either depends on the result of a motor, the result of an actuator or -in the latest case- the result of an IF-THEN statement. A result is one thing, the needed input to get there is another and the real source of energy.

You really should consider the energy input of your additions. (eg. on page 2: the replacing a motor with a spring)
So in the current case 'we' could build a mechanical IF-THEN-mechanism which is timed by wheel orientation: And when you do, there'd be no such accumulation.

I still like your approach though.

[cloud camper]

Looks interesting Mr V but what I see are the actuators having to do more work in less time retracting the weights against higher CF as rpm increases.. Seems like a pretty linear relationship input vs output.

How are you going to calculate the work done by the actuators?
It's not a zero sum game as you always try to claim.

[MrVibrating]

It's not a zero sum game as you always try to claim.

"Zero sum game" means equal PE to KE, in the context of energy, unless you're positing some kind of loss mechanism. Equal input to output. Hence the radial KE (how much linear radial KE the masses have) is always a function of the work being done by or to the actuators as the radial accelerations change directions. It just means "energy symmetry", ie. "no gains or non-dissipative losses"; a conservative system. Since we're not expecting any exotic effects from the actuator's conversion of work to radial KE, this interaction can only be a "zero sum game".

How are you going to calculate the work done by the actuators?

As before, cross-referencing between multiple measures in different units and dimensions to check for consistency and accuracy, using standard formulas.

So for instance we can take:

• actuator force times displacement.

• actuator power times time (ie. actuator force times time, times time)

• half the radial mass times the radial velocity squared

• use the "kinetic()" macro to get the net system KE, then calculate net RKE as a function of half the net MoI times angular velocity squared, and subtract this from the net system KE; the remainder should be the radial KE, and consistent with the other measures

• any other cross-checks i think of as and when..

Looks interesting Mr V

It looks singularly unimpressive - i've played with using MoI variations to boost lifts many times before, just not with this complete context in mind, but there's clearly not much to it.

It's only interesting once you appreciate the momentum source - you understand that an MoI variation can't add momentum, so if you really think this through then it's an extremely interesting form of motor, regardless of its efficiency..

but what I see are the actuators having to do more work in less time retracting the weights against higher CF as rpm increases.. Seems like a pretty linear relationship input vs output.

I expect so too, as i've explained.

Do bear in mind though that we're collecting most of our input energy back out again as MoI extends, and gravity is also adding momentum to the system as this occurs. Thus the net actuator efficiency per-cycle might not be quite as poor as you think..

But you're right, CF force squares with angular velocity, so no surprise if the input energy stays equal to output RKE.

As i say, it may be that inelastic collisions are a necessary condition to decouple PE from KE.

For now, we'll just have to wait until i can get all the data out; shouldn't take too long.

[MrVibrating]

"Please, anyone - now you can actually see it, argue or agree with me?

Sorry, but the only thing we see are simulation tricks. There's nothing to argue about and nothing to agree with.
Well, we could argue about the simulation addition while ignoring (or falsely assuming) their energy requirements.

"we can now robustly accumulate momentum from gravity "

..but, 'we' can't.

As usual your stuff either depends on the result of a motor, the result of an actuator or -in the latest case- the result of an IF-THEN statement. A result is one thing, the needed input to get there is another and the real source of energy.

You really should consider the energy input of your additions. (eg. on page 2: the replacing a motor with a spring)
So in the current case 'we' could build a mechanical IF-THEN-mechanism which is timed by wheel orientation: And when you do, there'd be no such accumulation.

I still like your approach though.

All mechs are 'if, then' processes - actions set to conditions.

It's a non-sequitir - the system's gaining momentum from gravity, regardless of the means by which the actions are synced. If this is your principle concern i'm genuinely sorry for you, but..

"Momentum" is mass * velocity - it's different to "energy", which is half the mass times the velocity squared.

So, yes, of course the radial work involves energy.

As ever, i suspect i could end up wasting a lot of effort repeating myself for you, so i'm not too bothered whether you follow or not.. but the objective, as repeated already, is to 'accumulate momentum, from gravity'. It does that.

What may useful or interesting about that, i have detailed already, both here and in other threads, but it's basically an asymmetric gravitational interaction with respect to momentum - it gains more momentum, from gravity, on the way down, than is transferred back to gravity on the way up.

It does this by varying the time spent gravitating on either side of the interaction.

And it does that via the MoI variation, which adds no momentum itself, but which applies reactionless positive and negative torques, thus slowing the drop and accelerating the lift.

Hence, because gravity's acceleration is constant, we have an asymmetric exchange of momentum between the rising and falling weight, and the earth.

The angular momentum being induced to the system is coming exclusively from gravity, Marchello..

When we stop this system, it can only re-balance the momentum distribution from the last cycle in progress when it stopped - so those specific momenta and counter-momenta cancel out. But all of the preceding asymmetric inertial interactions have generated a net system momentum that is not undone when the rotation stops!

Consider instead what would happen to earth's resting state if we spun up the rotor using a conventional motor:

• equal counter-momentum is applied to earth instantaneously

• no matter how high the RPM's get, when the rotor's stopped, all momentum and counter-momentum cancel out to zero


So even without OU (and we haven't even begun measuring energy yet), we already have a 'terrestrial warp drive' effect. We are extracting angular momentum from gravity.

It's actually pretty cool, even if i say so myself..