Blood From Stone

[silent]

.

[silent]

.

[ovyyus]

Karl had written that Bessler had devised an ingenious way to keep the weights nearer to the axle on their way back to the top...

Karl never described what he saw inside Bessler's wheel, as was his agreement with Bessler. Beware false reports promoted by those trying to support their own belief and/or agenda.

[MrVibrating]

But it still is rotating on it's own and gaining speed per the simulation. I agree though that monkeying around with the relationship to orbital radius is key and what do you think about the weights and masses? Certainly that will have a bearing on how things proceed as well? Anyway, it's still exciting to see where it can go from here. Thanks for sharing!

silent

Hmmm "rotating on it's own without a stator" is a neat trick, but the actuators are being supplied with as much energy as they need to accomplish these motions, it's not a closed-looped energy gain..

..but it is a closed-looped momentum gain, at energy cost.

This is still somewhat remarkable, since CoM is not supposed to be energy-dependent at all - and an effective CoM violation is the battle that wins the CoE war. Just a matter of applying it in the right way..

The big win, for this weekend anyway, is being able to cyclically draw momentum from gravity and accumulate it over successive cycles - at any energy cost.

On the flipside, we haven't yet decoupled its cost of production from its KE value (ie. 'mechanical OU'). But we will, with careful consideration of the requisite conditions..

Making free-KE-from-nowhere is actually a piece of piss, on paper - all you need is two inertias, angular or linear or one of each, any effective means of applying a reactionless acceleration between them (ie. so only one is initially accelerated), followed by an inelastic collision that wipes out 50% of the current KE; incredibly, that loss inverts into a gain within a few cycles, as the excess momentum mounts up.

What i'm going for is a physical process that simply replicates what that mathematical sequence does - replacing the variables with real masses and forces, a practical embodiment of the maths, type stuff..

Here's a quick demo:

• assume two 1 kg masses, and we're going to input energy in 1 Joule bursts

• per KE=½mV², if we can apply the 1 N / 1 s impulse to one of the masses only, then 1 kg with 1 J of KE is moving at 1.414 m/s

• we now inelastically collide it with the other, non-accelerated 1 kg, thus dividing 1.414 kg-m/s of momentum into two kilograms, rather than just one; hence halving the rise in velocity: both masses are now at 0.707 m/s, and so have ¼ J each, hence ½ J total KE, and a 50% loss on our initial 1 J investment..

• now just repeat that cycle, of reactionless acceleration followed by inelastic collision; one Joule at a time..

• we find that the net system velocity increases by that same 0.707 m/s every cycle; hence:

• 2nd cycle = 2 kg @ 1.414 m/s = 2 J, 100% unity

• 3rd cycle = 2 kg @ 2.121 m/s = 4.5 J, 150% of unity

• 4th cycle = 2 kg @ 2.828 m/s = 8 J, 200% of unity

..IOW a 50% increase in efficiency per successive cycle of accumulated momentum.

And yet, we're dissipating half our input energy with every collision!

Each time the two 1 kg masses (or could be 1 kg-m² angular inertias, same deal) collide to reach a new equilibrium velocity, half the energy we've just input gets wasted straight to noise and heat..

..and yet we're 150% OU after just three such cycles..

This, my friend, is the stuff to be getting excited about..

There simply is no other potential solution for mechanical OU, besides an effective N3 break. There are many variations on how it might be manifested - the current scheme is such an example, via a time-rate-of-change of momentum delta, but it's essentially the same net effect, of a cyclical closed-loop gain in momentum in an otherwise closed system of interacting masses.

These runaway momentum frames are 'divergent' - potentially breaking energy symmetry with all other reference frames. Thus the KE value of momentum in our static reference frame can be almost arbitrarily greater than the actual PE value of the work done in raising that momentum within the accelerated reference frame.

Another example of this can be seen quite starkly here:



- inertial torque is being used to precisely block the motor's counter-torque, preventing the manifestation of counter-momentum - an effective N3 break - with the result that 0.5 J of work by the motor - the only source of actual angular acceleration in the system - has converted into a 1.5 J rise in rotor KE - 3x OU right before our very eyes... but for the cost of the CF/CP workload..

..which brings us to orbital vs axial momentum frames! Where it goes next who knows, but it's not like we can't see our quarry, it's right there on camera, we know the conditions upon which it depends, it's just a matter of clear-headed application of maths so pathologically bad they actually form a 'logic trap' for the laws of nature, into some kind of blasphemy of a contraption. How hard can that be? We have the treasure map - it ain't even buried, just scattered around the surface - just need to suss how to fill our boots..

Ain't no search left mate, it's takedown time.. it can run, etc. etc..

[silent]

.

[silent]

.

[ME]

More noise to Silent, in case you missed.

But it still is rotating on it's own and gaining speed per the simulation.

Hmmm "rotating on it's own without a stator" is a neat trick, but the actuators are being supplied with as much energy as they need to accomplish these motions, it's not a closed-looped energy gain..

..but it is a closed-looped momentum gain, at energy cost.

That was basically what my whole point from the beginning. Hence, V could have used a single motor to induce a better and smoother rotation.

it can run, etc. etc..

Not freely on its own.

[sleepy]

Hello Silent,
I understand that you are new to this and it's all very exciting and inspirational. You will come to realize in time that every design you will ever see for a PM wheel will fit many of Bessler's clues. I think Mr. V is an intelligent and creative person, but his designs seem to take advantage of the positive aspects and completely disregard the negatives. The actuator,if one this sophisticated exists, will not only take energy to function, but it's own weight will effect the rotation. Not to mention that whatever device you use to extract excess energy from the wheel to power the actuator, will also negatively effect the rotation. Have you ever seen a generator that is very easy to turn until you put a load on it?

[Fletcher]

Hi Mr V .. I thought I might as well weigh in somewhat, on the back of ME's and sleepy's comments. Not meant to derail or discourage you but perhaps widen all our perspectives in our search. IMO exploitation of MOI for momentum and energy gain as you are attempting to demonstrate seems a plausible possibility if we have the right mechanics.

I just want to lay out some thoughts then ask some questions that we should all think about.

FWIW B. said that his PM secret was very simple, but deeply hidden. So simple in fact that he was concerned a buyer could ask for his money back.

Now I'm going to apply Ockhma's Razor and suggest that B's wheel internal mechanics looked like almost any OOB system, with a Prime Mover system and a secondary OOB system that were connected (or coupled if you prefer). MT seems to suggest that many designs could be made to work.

But we almost all believe that gravity is a conservative force and in a closed wheel environment that gravity can not be a source of energy vis a vis a Gravity Only wheel is extremely unlikely both then and now.

But most OOB designs involve shifting weights or lever weights (lws) for example. They periodically change radius as they swing in and out etc.

Whilst standard physics says that in a closed system there will not be asymmetric torque from OOB systems, we also inherently know that these swinging lever-weights etc change system MOI so that system MOI is in a state of flux thru rotation.

So my question to you (and us) is what does greater or lesser wheel MOI really mean ?

It's my understanding that a greater MOI rotating structure takes more energy input to achieve a certain speed in a standard time interval (rpm). A lesser MOI rotating structure can be accelerated for less energy input to the same rpm.

So once again applying Ockham's Razor, it seems plausible to me that B's wheels simply looked like OOB systems but actually exploited a change in MOI from transitioning lws etc. And this was potentially the deep dive secret he was protecting and took him so long to find and harness mechanically.

My conclusion being that any MOI exploit fell out of his hunt for an OOB wheel, and hence why there is 99% common DNA to an ordinary OOB system. And why he suddenly realized why all the other attempts had failed; because he had discovered the deeply buried secret to accumulating momentum thru fluxing of system MOI that had energy advantages rather than asymmetric torque advantages.

JMO's. Something to think about as we look for our own deep dive PM secret that is extremely simple.

[MrVibrating]

OK so let's learn to walk before trying to run - we need to look closer at the effect responsible for introducing this momentum from gravity - so far, the distribution of weight and radially-translating mass is somewhat arbitrary - 1 kg each - so it's probably a good idea to look at how that relationship affects the momentum gains, right?

We know the asymmetry's due to the difference in time spent gravitating in the upwards vs downwards directions, so obviously, increasing the magnitude of the MoI variation relative to the weight should likewise raise that comparative time difference..

..so then, there's two ways we could go about doing that - increase the amount of radially-translating mass... or else, increase the radial distance it moves. Or both.. Three ways.

CF force is given by mass times angular velocity squared, times radius.

So doubling mass, doubles CF, whereas doubling radius squares CF.

This in turn is a factor in the energy cost of the MoI variation, and the amount of momentum raised.

You'd think, ideally, we'd want to raise the most amount of momentum per cycle, for the minimum amount of energy..

At the last check, we were at ~1.8 J per kg-m²-rad/s..

..the standard KE terms ½mV² and ½Iw² tell us that the bare minimum energy cost of momentum is ½ J per kg-m^2, so this should be our target yield - basically, the cheaper it is, the lower our break-even energy level. Conversely, the more expensive it is, the more momentum we'll need to be carrying before it starts to pay off.

Additionally, increasing the time period of the momentum gain stroke should give us a greater degree of the self-governing speed we're depending on to keep axial CF as low as possible, even while orbital CF goes through the roof..


Finally, we must consider the orbital MoI, since this is where we're going to be hoarding a hopefully-OU quantity of angular momentum..

It would seem obvious that we want the orbital radius as narrow as possible - in other words, only just off the central axis, rather than 2 meters out as in the 2.6 rig... because the radius of these mechanisms, and the amount of rest mass each one contains, is what determines that orbital MoI.

Obviously, for a given amount of angular momentum, the lower the MoI, the greater its velocity... and thus KE value.

Conversely, if we raise the orbital MoI too high, its angular velocity, and thus KE, for a given quantity of banked momentum, is going to be low... and substantially lower than the energy we're wasting in our inelastic collisions.


Thus, since we want to keep that orbital MoI as low as possible, we should probably favour raising the radius of the momentum-skimming MoI variation, rather than its mass, and if anything, reducing the mass.

So the ideal design criteria for our MoI variation is minimal mass, moving maximal radius, and thus in minimal time..

..we then want to position these mechanisms in the tightest-possible orbit about the main axis.

Thus we should get a larger gain in momentum from gravity per cycle, and a greater return value when it's converted into orbital momentum and thus orbital RKE.


Maximal orbital velocity for the given momentum gained, minimum total rest mass for each gain mechanism, and minimum possible velocity for their gain cycles relative to the orbital velocity (keeping their CF-workload costs minimal)..

So lets try to redesign with a focus on optimising these criteria, and then check our efficiency again..

[silent]

.

[MrVibrating]

More noise to Silent, in case you missed.

But it still is rotating on it's own and gaining speed per the simulation.

Hmmm "rotating on it's own without a stator" is a neat trick, but the actuators are being supplied with as much energy as they need to accomplish these motions, it's not a closed-looped energy gain..

..but it is a closed-looped momentum gain, at energy cost.

That was basically what my whole point from the beginning.

Well duh - yes, momentum has an associated energy cost. You were claiming that it wasn't being measured - the whole point of the experiments.

Hence, V could have used a single motor to induce a better and smoother rotation.

LOL please show us how you'd apply a motor to produce momentum sans counter-momentum? I'm obviously some kind of idiot going about it the hard way - i bet you have a much better closed-loop momentum gain from your motor there, eh? "Time-dependent momentum asymmetry"? More like flick a switch and grab a beer, right? That's using your noodle. Some folks are just suckers for punishment eh..

it can run, etc. etc..

Not freely on its own.

..uh the "it" in question is OU, (as in "it can run but it can't hide" (and sundry other clichés)), so yes, by definition, that's precisely what defines it.


But let's forget about all that for a moment and focus on you, Marchello - at what point did you realise that "collaborative research" and "trolling" were basically the same thing? Enquiring minds wish to know..

[justsomeone]

You certainly don't like your intellect questioned , do you Mr. V. ?

[silent]

.

[MrVibrating]

Hi Mr V .. I thought I might as well weigh in somewhat, on the back of ME's and sleepy's comments. Not meant to derail or discourage you but perhaps widen all our perspectives in our search. IMO exploitation of MOI for momentum and energy gain as you are attempting to demonstrate seems a plausible possibility if we have the right mechanics.

I just want to lay out some thoughts then ask some questions that we should all think about.

FWIW B. said that his PM secret was very simple, but deeply hidden. So simple in fact that he was concerned a buyer could ask for his money back.

Now I'm going to apply Ockhma's Razor and suggest that B's wheel internal mechanics looked like almost any OOB system, with a Prime Mover system and a secondary OOB system that were connected (or coupled if you prefer). MT seems to suggest that many designs could be made to work.

But we almost all believe that gravity is a conservative force and in a closed wheel environment that gravity can not be a source of energy vis a vis a Gravity Only wheel is extremely unlikely both then and now.

But most OOB designs involve shifting weights or lever weights (lws) for example. They periodically change radius as they swing in and out etc.

Whilst standard physics says that in a closed system there will not be asymmetric torque from OOB systems, we also inherently know that these swinging lever-weights etc change system MOI so that system MOI is in a state of flux thru rotation.

So my question to you (and us) is what does greater or lesser wheel MOI really mean ?

It's my understanding that a greater MOI rotating structure takes more energy input to achieve a certain speed in a standard time interval (rpm). A lesser MOI rotating structure can be accelerated for less energy input to the same rpm.

So once again applying Ockham's Razor, it seems plausible to me that B's wheels simply looked like OOB systems but actually exploited a change in MOI from transitioning lws etc. And this was potentially the deep dive secret he was protecting and took him so long to find and harness mechanically.

My conclusion being that any MOI exploit fell out of his hunt for an OOB wheel, and hence why there is 99% common DNA to an ordinary OOB system. And why he suddenly realized why all the other attempts had failed; because he had discovered the deeply buried secret to accumulating momentum thru fluxing of system MOI that had energy advantages rather than asymmetric torque advantages.

JMO's. Something to think about as we look for our own deep dive PM secret that is extremely simple.

You're quite possibly right, it's something i'm often thinking about - did he really delineate the two vis viva's and work out the dependence of CoE upon CoM from first principles.. or was it just a 'happy accident' he was smart enough to follow up on?

I think he's given sufficient indication's he's aware of the importance of counter-momentum, and that it's possible he was thinking in terms of trapping and entraining the vis viva - motion itself - for some years after "learning the hard way" about the futility of chasing a GPE exploit. He mentions being unimpressed with others' thoughts on the issue - as would anyone who has progressed beyond OOB designs listening to more of the same - and given the latest findings that the design has to be optimised to minimise orbital inertia before the banked momentum has sufficient KE to exceed input energy, the first tentative runner he describes seems unlikely to have been an OOB design-gone-wrong, and really could only have been inspired along similar lines as here - the search for a way to reduce the CF costs of generating momentum from gravity. It's a very particular design criteria that would serve no obvious advantage in an OOB scheme..

Arguably, with regards to weight levers, an "MoI" has to be in some way confined to the axis in question - if it's just floating or swinging around then it's own axis of rotation is the only MoI that really matters, since its orbital MoI isn't really a function of the net orbital momentum or RKE - and that's what validates a given measure of MoI - it's the base field for mV and ½mV².. so if an acceleration of the net system isn't likewise accelerating some internal mass in the same plane because it's swinging or rotating or changing radius on a pivoting axis, then it's not really meaningfully part of it's MoI, nor thus a function of the instantaneous net system AM or RKE.

We know CoM and CoAM. We know he (correctly) stated that mechanical OU depends upon statorless operation. We know that driving a load with an OU wheel necessarily involves offloading some momentum with that donated KE, so more momentum must be sourced. We know his wheels were vertical, and we now know that momentum can be sourced from gravity without using a stator. We know he used internal masses changing radius, and attributed the causative principle to them and these transitions. We know these transitions produce reactionless 'inertial torque' . We know they cannot cumulatively add KE or momentum over successive cycles. But we know that the accelerations and decelerations they cause produce the opportunity to grab momentum from gravity.

We know that accumulating reactionless angular momentum is an inherently non-conservative process. We know that inelastic collisions can consolidate momentum gains. We know that axial CF is independent of orbital CF. It seems to me, he could've figured out most of this stuff the same way we have.. like he said, if it's there, then it's just a matter of searching diligently enough. Methodically, and persistently enough. As ever, the implicit instructions for generating 'free' energy are written between the lines of its terms of conservation - don't do the things you need to do to conserve energy, and you won't.. and that's where the methodology, and thus inevitability, comes in.

You've got mass - inertia, angular and linear - force, accel, vel, plus 'what goes up must come down' - there's not really that many permutations is there?

Compared to the dozen or so different inter-reacting effects and properties that make EM interactions so non-linear, mechanics presents a much narrower range of interactions to try out..

..and what you quickly find is that both inertial interactions, and gravitational ones, are pretty firmly conservative within their own terms. Hence the only remaining option is combining them - investigating their inter-reactions..

And with angular inertias, you can't not end up playing with MoI variations and their effects..

Dunno, all text-walled out. TL;DR, i think he'd've had to get here by the same route we did.