Blood From Stone

[MrVibrating]

Hi MrVibrating,
don't waste your time to fight against others.
They don't know it better.

What is named an expert ?
An expert is someone until someone better is showing up, and then this person is the expert.

Expert knowledge normally has an expiration date.

So keep going on, you are an expert on this development field, the others will follow soon.

Thank you sir, and yes, i am the world's leading authority on my own BS, and everyone should respect my authoritah!

Critique is of course valuable, if on-point. Collaboration would be even better, but you're right, give it time, just don't hang around waiting for it..

The momentum gain is precisely equal to the lift/drop time differential, relative to the gravitational constant.

This is the reason to build a wheel big, so that you can see with your eye this difference. In my wheel the up is faster than this 9,81...

Well, whatever the up/down time delta, its energy cost of harnessing squares with velocity, via the CF/CP workload, so progress can only mean decoupling that relationship.

If we can do that, then it'll be time to maybe look at optimising the asymmetry.

Do bear in mind however that frequency - many smaller gains in a given time - may provide better efficiency than fewer, larger gains per unit time, simply because the anticipated gain margin squares with velocity. Dunno, let's see if we can even get ahead in the first place, then work out how to optimise from there..

[ME]

It's like i'm showing you the plans for a hydro-electric dam, and you're all like "but it's just a big wall, how's that make energy? All that concrete must cost a bit?"...

You have to admit that building a hydroelectric dam wall in the middle of the desert sounds a bit strange.
Perhaps you could also provide a basin, a good weather prediction and/or an additional mountain...
Because you sure ignore the influx of energy: A continuous source of water in the metaphor, and for the mechanism it is that programming effect of the actuators.

But I don't care if you build a big wall and hope for rain. Who actually knows what will happen, and how much foresight you have.... I just provide a scribble in the sideline for the silent readers -- who have their own, perhaps totally different, opinion.

Moving masses in and out cannot add any momentum - on the contrary, it conserves it.

Agreed.

But such conservation stuff is not the case in your experiment.

The actuator is just programmed to move no matter what, why and how... (how fast it's able to react, how much it needs to accelerate, how much energy it would cost, where to get it from. Via the one-line-programming of the actuator position there is absolutely no mechanical environment to counter its action: like when the radial motion would be mechanically controlled and coupled by a gear, a lever or a pulley etc. It just bluntly moves in synchronization with the rotation of the wheel. The energy gains and requirements are completely in the dark.
Hence, on page 2, I replaced your motor with a spring in order to help enlighten the physics behind it.

Feel free to ignore. But the claims of any kind of gain is false.

We have a similar (but slightly different) situation here:
http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=7636
Big Gains, At a Complete Loss..
On page 3 the result of a spreadsheet physics solver...

---

You cannot add angular momentum to a system via MoI variations alone, period. They can only vary the KE.

But you just add angular momentum directly by forcing your actuator motion against the centrifugal and gaining kinetic energy is exactly what you observe.
When you'd observe where you need the most energy to move at your desired speed at your desired radial distance, then you'd see it's simply on that ascending side. Your actuator just does the energy-adjustment automatically because it just moves to a predefined location, you assume it doesn't matter...

Only gravity can contribute momentum, because it is a uniform acceleration

Dude..?

For your reference, consider again what happens when the two interactions are rotated 90° relative to one another:

Much appreciated !
They are symmetric.

No longer are the red angular weights on the outside when the Green pendulum goes down, and no longer on the inside when the green goes up.

hmm. ok I see.
I notice I'm biased to see exactly what I tried to show in "Importance of raising weights"...
I just see similar things: To me a vertical raise against gravity is similar (not equal) to a center seeking raise against centrifugal.
Perhaps that view is not entirely normal... SORRY.
Your latest example is as like moving sideways (as people usually try in their PMM).
Hence it is most likely that when you reverse this latest action (as if like moving towards the unfortunate ascending side), the effect will be even worse.

But that similarity doesn't change a thing, actually makes it easier.
In my topic I'm not talking about any mechanism, just about the necessity of a lift to create an overbalanced situation, and thus the futility to move sideways as is usually attempted. In my case I could use an actuator to raise things against gravity, doing it 180 degrees apart it also continuously moves back and forth... such action costs energy, and is equalized with the resulting torque per cycle: (wheel acceleration)
I have to admit, rising against centrifugal is perhaps more elegant.

[MrVibrating]

You have to admit that building a hydroelectric dam wall in the middle of the desert sounds a bit strange.
Perhaps you could also provide a basin, a good weather prediction and/or an additional mountain...
Because you sure ignore the influx of energy: A continuous source of water in the metaphor, and for the mechanism it is that programming effect of the actuators.

You're so intractably hung up on how the radial motion is synchronised (hint, it's just a frickin' mechanism, like any other), you're utterly oblivious to the fact that it's already fully thermodynamically accounted for to six significant figures.

I'm displaying precisely how much work is being done, and what its distributions are.

Agreed.

But such conservation stuff is not the case in your experiment.

The actuator is just programmed to move no matter what, why and how... (how fast it's able to react, how much it needs to accelerate, how much energy it would cost, where to get it from. Via the one-line-programming of the actuator position there is absolutely no mechanical environment to counter its action: like when the radial motion would be mechanically controlled and coupled by a gear, a lever or a pulley etc. It just bluntly moves in synchronization with the rotation of the wheel. The energy gains and requirements are completely in the dark.

BS, all sims are provided with full energy telemetry, spreadsheets included for any interesting results.

You're the one willfully ignoring the energy accounting, not me mate.

But you just add angular momentum directly by forcing your actuator motion against the centrifugal and gaining kinetic energy is exactly what you observe.

B-b-but didn't you just agree that radial translations (ie. against CF) cannot change net momentum? Now you're claiming it's trivial that they do so? Furthermore you're conflating momentum and energy (again!?)

Yes an MoI retraction converts PE to RKE... but it cannot add momentum! LOL this is very basic Marchello, the momentum gain is directly proportional to the up vs down time differential, because gravity is a constant acceleration, and the MoI variation is causing reactionless accelerations and decelerations - prolonging the drop time, and hastening the lift time.

When you'd observe where you need the most energy to move at your desired speed at your desired radial distance, then you'd see it's simply on that ascending side. Your actuator just does the energy-adjustment automatically because it just moves to a predefined location, you assume it doesn't matter...

Arggh! This is surreal! What metric of work done am i not accounting for? Output precisely equals input energy - the sum of radial inertial work is equal to the net rise in system KE, so any additional measures of energy you're proposing are going to invoke an OU result!

You're just being obstreperous.. please take it elsewhere?

Much appreciated !
They are symmetric.

No longer are the red angular weights on the outside when the Green pendulum goes down, and no longer on the inside when the green goes up.

hmm. ok I see.
I notice I'm biased to see exactly what I tried to show in "Importance of raising weights"...
I just see similar things: To me a vertical raise against gravity is similar (not equal) to a center seeking raise against centrifugal.
Perhaps that view is not entirely normal... SORRY.
Your latest example is as like moving sideways (as people usually try in their PMM).
Hence it is most likely that when you reverse this latest action (as if like moving towards the unfortunate ascending side), the effect will be even worse.

But that similarity doesn't change a thing, actually makes it easier.
In my topic I'm not talking about any mechanism, just about the necessity of a lift to create an overbalanced situation, and thus the futility to move sideways as is usually attempted. In my case I could use an actuator to raise things against gravity, doing it 180 degrees apart it also continuously moves back and forth... such action costs energy, and is equalized with the resulting torque per cycle: (wheel acceleration)
I have to admit, rising against centrifugal is perhaps more elegant.

...well, to do that you're going to need some kind of radial displacement, and if you're simming it then whatever does that is going to be merely following some instruction you've given it, thus invalidating the results by your logic, so good luck working out how to measure it.. ;P

From what you say however it sounds like you're trying to engineer a gravitational energy asymmetry, a proposal to which there is only one answer: gravity, mass and distance are all constants, thus any close-looped trajectory can only yield zero net energy.

A system can only become thermodynamically open when it involves some time-dependent energy metric.

This is very, very fundamental, Marchello. In this endeavor, you have nothing, if not comprehension of this fact.

You cannot even plot out a theoretical gain on paper without it, let alone theorise meaningfully about practicalities.

Sorry mate but you're just contributing noise here..

[MrVibrating]

Right i'll keep it brief:


- renamed the unchanged previous rig in its entirety to 'rotor1'

- added a second rotor, a blank disc with equal MoI (5) to that of rotor1 when it's at TDC and BDC positions

- so now rotor1 is connected to rotor2 by a clutch - a motor set to "velocity = 0" which briefly activates as the weight passes TDC, effectively doubling the inertia and so halving the velocity of the gained momentum


Here's the result:




No biscuit yet. The input energy is still tracking ½mV², only now we also have the KE loss associated with the inelastic collision.

It's not all doom and gloom of course - the efficiency profile we're after also starts out with a loss, but this should improve cumulatively over successive cycles, hitting unity after some threshold number have passed, and then exceeding it, and it's this particular behaviour we're not seeing.

So, time to step back and have a think - what is it that the mathematical solution does, that this rig isn't doing? We've evidently missed one or more checkboxes on the 'OU conditions' list.

Seriously trying to limit the text-walls, but the purpose of this thread's research, trying to thrash out ideas and set coherent objectives, and it is a Sunday, so i'm going to once again carefully pick my way through a theoretical gain scenario that works, to try and unpick what's missing in this particular attempt at an embodiment..

[MrVibrating]

...so, it would seem obvious that the solution is this:



..to wit, orbiting axes have CF profiles independent of their orbital velocity.

So in principle, we can collect momentum from gravity via orbiting applications of this mechanism, which then transfer their momentum gains back to the main orbital axis.

Hence, the orbital angular momentum and RKE will be increasing with each momentum gain cycle, but the cost of production of that momentum should no longer be squaring with net system velocity.


There's also a further potential simplification that might be worth trying, which is to replace the two red 0.5 kg masses with a single 1 kg mass, which alternates between the same inner and outer radii, but which is now also thus alternating the weight, as well as the MoI:



Perhaps, with careful coordination, both red and green masses could alternate between acting as weights and MoI variations, taking each role in turn, and neatly fitting B's description of "alternating inner and outer positions"...

Or i could just stick with counter-balanced 0.5 kg masses as before... might do that for now, since it's already getting reliable momentum gains.. So basically, what i wanna try is a pair of the last sims, counter-balancing one another on a larger rotor, and adding their angular momentum gains back to the orbital axis, rather than their own axes, thus hoarding momentum from gravity at constant energy cost. Right. That's a plan. Now to implement it..

[silent]

.

[MrVibrating]

Best of luck with it mate, but whatever the superficial similarities may be, unless your focus is upon time-dependent momentum gains from gravity, and then using those momentum gains to cause a divergent inertial frame that decouples PE from KE, we're on completely different pages. I don't like private correspondence as it undermines my whole reason for being here (open research).

[MrVibrating]

So now we have a marriage of the v2.5 rig, with the isolated CF profile afforded by an orbiting axis.

Essentially, the only difference to v2.5 is that 'rotor2' is now an orbital axis, rather than a coaxial one.

The result thus far is a little ungraceful - it takes a few turns to find its groove, but then does appear to take off:



So, yeah.. little haphazard for now - obviously, just one mech so far, counter-balanced by a dead-weight - but it appears to be doing the business..!


Sooo... logically.... putting the above findings together, this orbital RKE profile should now be decoupled from the input energy profile - IOW, the net KE should no longer be a linear function of input energy, and conversely, input energy is no longer tracking ½mV² of the net output energy...

...the first few cycles must be lossy, but with a non-linear evolution, so - hopefully - there'll be a break-even point, beyond which that loss inverts..

We could pretty much start taking data from it as-is, so i'll post up some energy results as soon as i've got 'em.. Hopefully should be a bit more interesting than the last lot!

[silent]

.

[MrVibrating]

Thanks mate but we haven't even looked at the energy stats yet - it's being powered by God-knows how much input energy, so until that's established it's no more impressive than a conventional motor. With any luck though, we might see some interesting results before the evening's out..

[MrVibrating]

OK it's still a bit rough'n'ready, but here's a first look at the results of a 1 minute run:




..obviously, these orbiting mechanisms will have to maintain the power of free movement (as Bessler had been saying since 1712), since if their motion were hard-synced to that of the orbital position, their axial velocity would be accelerating along with the orbital velocity, and so locking the input cost to ½mV² via the rising CF/CP workload.

Conversely, allowing them to be accelerated freely by gravity, so the logic goes, should decouple the corresponding CF/CP workload from the orbital velocity - so in principle we should be able to crank up higher orbital RKE's than the cost of the axial CF/CP workloads generating that orbital angular momentum..


So at a first glance it does look a bit 'non-linear' - it's basically a bit chaotic for the first 30 seconds, before settling into a steady acceleration phase. But around the 20 and 30 second marks there appears quite a marked divergence between the two angular momenta - so we have quite a lot of orbital RKE, for not a lot of axial CF/CP work..

..for this reason i'm gonna split it into two ~30 sec integrals - i'll prolly take the net first just out of curiosity, then break it down into the chaotic vs settled stages..

[silent]

.

[MrVibrating]

Well don't say i didn't warn ya.. KE's 1/5th of input energy!

Still, there's a few variables to try tweak, such as orbital MoI and orbital radius - be interesting to see how they affect the outcome - the principle, of keeping axial CF low whilst transferring momentum to the orbital axis, seems sound, and hey, if non-conservation of energy's the priority it's at least a 50% success..

The axial speed evidently is increasing, so the reasons for this, and possibilities for limiting it, need exploring. The relationship to orbital radius is presumably key..

[silent]

.

[MrVibrating]

..just checked the first 32 secs, and it's initially only a 50% loss, so it's obviously the KE losses from the clutch that are mounting up faster than the RKE gains on the orbital axis.

Should also probably go back to one cycle at a time, whilst delineating what's what..