Blood From Stone

[MrVibrating]

OK soz for the delay - came off me bike at work, nursing a bust arm (but fine, and well used to it) - great work mate, if i understand correctly you just want to plot the radial workload. This is fairly straightforwards, taking into consideration centrifugal force and gravity as a varying function of radius and angle, relative to the mass / weight and speed.

Ideally tho you want to be able to set up meters to monitor changes in this telemetry on-the-fly - i could knock up a sim for a specific set or range of parameters, or simply guide you through the relevant calcs (CF force times velocity times time is the really useful trick).. if the loads on each end of the scissorjack are balanced, that makes it even easier, but not a problem either way..

Really though you be better off getting a copy of WM, by fair means or foul - I'd never condone bootlegging, but 20-year-old software isn't generally hard to find.. if you're turning to a numpty like me you're getting desperate..

[MrVibrating]

Re. my last spurious OU claim - soz to leave it hanging so long, it was obviously a mistake tho, again.. after specifically metering radial KE so's i couldn't miss it, i'd nonetheless become used to only taking integrals after radial motion had ceased.. except in that last run, it hadn't... and so there's the "excess energy", duh. I'm such a pillock..

whilst laid up in agony tho i found the real solution..

..i was thinking about the axial-to-orbital result, where the standard MoI calcs failed the moment the axial rotors started rotating - caused by their orbital angular inertia converging to their axial axes, irrespective of the masses' actual orbital radius.. the sim (its "kinetic()" function) was calculating twice as much energy as the standard formulas i always use reliably! The actual equation required once the axial rotors are rotating is simply the static MoI as a function of the net axial mass times the orbital radius of its axis, squared. Its specific spatial distribution and axial mass radius becomes irrelevant. Until the axial rotation stops again, and only the orbital rotation remains...


The other result that seemed useful was the finding that centrifugal force acting on an orbiting axis is independent of the orbital speed and CF. Different aspects of the same principles, but could this be the MoI wildcard we're looking for?


Bessler only said MoI variations were key ("masses alternating inner /outer positions") - not that gravity was! He also said there was nothing "pro forma" (for appearances sake only), yet is it not possible that the employment of gravity was nonetheless incidental to the gain principle, rather than crucial to it? If his objective was primarily the elusive "gravity wheel" rather than "OU" per se, perhaps he never saw it as a meaningful distinction.. but since he elsewhere acknowledges the implausibility of GPE asymmetries, what specific need for gravity as an 'input' force, could there be?


I've tried every possible variation on gravito-inertial interactions or whatever you'd call 'em - starting to repeat things already eliminated - so i think i may have taken a wrong turn there, for a few years..

I became convinced that KE gains from a gravity-assisted N3 break were the only consistent explanation.


Because, even if you had a way of reducing MoI for free, that still only nets you an energy gain, not a momentum gain, right? I mean, it only accelerates because it's conserving momentum in the process, right? And then, if you harvest off that kinetic energy gain, you necessarily also wipe out the momentum that's a function of the same inertia and velocity you're braking away... so it's just conceptually inconsistent, right off the bat. You need a constant momentum supply, along with your KE gains, surely?


But in dismissing the possibility, i may have overlooked a potential way out - what if we used such a KE gain to raise some GPE? Then we can gain momentum by dropping it!


Maybe the exploit really is just an effectively-free MoI variation? Pull some orbiting mass inwards, but, because 'magic', there's no CF work to do, yet the rotation speeds up anyway and you gain a nice load of free KE from nowhere.. wouldn't that be cool..

..'cept it's impossible, right?



Right?




;)

[MrVibrating]

Might as well pack up and go home y'all..



Win.










Black helicopters & crank emailing time.. uhh, i've no idea what to do now.. so i guess i'll just lob this in here and see if it floats..?

Any takers?


No friggin' integrals to take, for once (no curves, period!) There is no input energy to miscalculate! Even i couldn't fuck this up, surely? Free MoI variation, in your face! No momentum asymmetry, and fuck-all to do with gravity! Fuck you Bessler, i got you rumbled mate. It works exactly like he said - weights alternating inner / outer radii is the causative principle - the "excess impetus / preponderance" is an instant, spontaneous KE gain, not a momentum gain, which is trivially achieved by other means! It hinges upon "everything rotating together" because it depends upon the crucial changes in net system MoI between rotating and static orbiting axes - the solution is the same as that to the axial-v-orbital rigs - the correct MoI term on which to base the current momentum and energy measures is not one term, but two - one for each separate condition! So when the axial rotors are locked, we use one MoI term, but as soon as they start rotating about their own axes, that term becomes irrelevant, and the other must be bought into play.

Everything in the above sim's being calculated on the fly - no canned presets, even though the MoI only flips between two values, which could easily have been hard-coded, instead the MoI meter is actually two (one's hidden), since the equations calculating those two numbers are too long to fit in a single meter.. similarly, it's using 16 digits internally, even tho it's only displaying 3, and i've only just let up on the max-frequency, max-precision BS in this last revision - how bleedin' accurately do we need to calculate "zero" anyway? It's zero. There. Ain't. No. Input. Energy. 8 joules just turns into 16 Joules, for free, and it happens in zero time - instantaneously. In infinitesimal time. The precise instant the axial motors activate! In that split instant, orbital velocity doubles without accelerating! There is no acceleration phase! It changes speed in zero time! WTAF? One second you're looking at 8 J, then bang and it's 16! Just like that! None of your namby-pamby 'climbing up' here - and then, whilst still rotating relative to the orbital axis, yet not at all relative to us or axial CF, and without the orbital MoI once wavering, the masses are pulled into their axial centers, without doing any work, to the exact same final halved-MoI as caused by the axial rotation, and so harnessing what would otherwise be only a transient gain, disappearing in another blink the moment the axial rotation stopped.. instead, that 16 J just keeps on rolling; it's there, it's real, it's not a miscalculation, and it was CoM wot dunnit..

[MrVibrating]

For perspective, here's the interaction without the radial translation, or, thus, subsequent consolidation:


Linear actuators disabled.

..again, we see that the spontaneous manifestation of the gain is dependent only upon the instant change in MoI caused by the instigation of axial rotation - the radial translation merely closes the deal.

Conceivably, the gain might be harnessed by other means, obviating the radial translation method entirely.. it's there and available - the system's 200% OU - at the instant the orbital torques are applied. But after the radial translation, it's just all over - it's unequivocal. Not a theoretical gain. Not a prospective opportunity.. a done deal. Physical, present and extant rotational KE. Potential to perform work. What am i missing? Someone tell me i'm tripping?

[TheVisitorV]

i've been experimenting with very similar setups in the past days:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sPQoEfHuClo

i don't know what to make out of it either.

[Georg Künstler]

MrVibrating wrote:

But in dismissing the possibility, i may have overlooked a potential way out - what if we used such a KE gain to raise some GPE?
Then we can gain momentum by dropping it!

Thats the trick !!
You use the KE and raise the weight to get some GPE.
GPE you can use again then.
But you don't violate any existing rule, so no N3 violation.
Your GPE is using a constant acceleration g.
If you variate the acceleration above or under 9,81 then you automatically have a gain or lost in energy.
if your acceleration is above 9,81 you get an gain of energy
if your acceleration is below 9,81 you get a lost of energy.
It is the difference of acceleration that counts !!

[silent]

.

[MrVibrating]

MrVibrating wrote:

But in dismissing the possibility, i may have overlooked a potential way out - what if we used such a KE gain to raise some GPE?
Then we can gain momentum by dropping it!

Thats the trick !!
You use the KE and raise the weight to get some GPE.
GPE you can use again then.
But you don't violate any existing rule, so no N3 violation.
Your GPE is using a constant acceleration g.
If you variate the acceleration above or under 9,81 then you automatically have a gain or lost in energy.
if your acceleration is above 9,81 you get an gain of energy
if your acceleration is below 9,81 you get a lost of energy.
It is the difference of acceleration that counts !!

I currently have gravity disabled since it has no effect on the system - i'm tempted to attach a GPE load via a pulley or clutch or whatever but simply changing one type of gain into another seems a bit unnecessary - it's not like there's any doubt over the veracity of rotKE. I could waste hours doing frivolous things with the gain, but for now i'm content to just capture it via the radial translation trick.

But yes, the purpose of using GPE loads would be to gain momentum, which a KE gain alone cannot do (actually, which depends upon not doing, thus causing velocity and KE to double to compensate the halving of MoI) - and then, as previously demonstrated, the trick to gaining momentum from gravity is indeed time dependence - lift fast, drop slow - which simply happens automatically when we re-lift OB weights radially.

What would be really cool would be a demonstration of this gain using a GPE output at one end, raising a GPE input twice the size at the other.. without using motors; if they're really performing no work, presumably they can be replaced with simple pivots and something to just nudge the rotors into rotation..

[MrVibrating]

Ya damned idgit! You're not supposed to fall off the bicycle - you're supposed to ride it!

All joking aside, I'm really sorry for your injury. The bright side to any downtime suffered with an injury is time spent contemplating on all manner of things up to and including Bessler wheels, the meaning of life, did you remember to turn off the coffee pot, and so forth. I'm not a junkie, but if I'm on some kind of a powerful pain med, the ability to dream and imagine is escalated and I like to capitalize on those times. Looking back, I think I thought I was smarter because nothing tangible ever came from it.

What you have discovered with the difference in accelerations is something I've been working on. I found this link buried deep within a google search: http://mb-soft.com/public2/earthrot.html

If you go to the pink highlighted text the guy explains more about his mechanism. Unfortunately no pictures are provided as he outright says he will not tell you how to build the mechanism. I did my best to build it but not realizing that I need to physically synchronize both mechanisms. In his description of how it works, he says, "...they are caused to be out of phase..." Well I took it that by rotating they would naturally be out of phase and that's just not the case. They have to be hooked together to FORCE them out of phase. I've included a photo and yes, I've purposefully buried this within your link because I don't want it easy to find. Only those who are following the thread and it's importance need to see this.

Here's a video of me spinning it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hgJ6mNq ... e=youtu.be

I'm pretty proud of my skateboard bearing and pop bottle top combination discovery which makes assembling things like this tons easier.

I bring this up only because of your realization that the differences in accelerations caused by the differences in distances from the weights to the center point seem to be the anomaly that makes things work. In fact, in the article I posted the link to, the guy tells that his mechanism ran in the closet for 2 weeks and over 600,000 revolutions. That breaks down precariously close to 1 revolution once every 2 seconds which if I'm not mistaken isn't that much faster than what one or more of Bessler's wheels rotated at (26 dropped to 20 under load was it?)

So I've attempted to do in 3d what you're doing in 2d. I just need to physically link the 2 rotating gyros (what I call them) so they are always caused to be phased 90 degrees out from each other. According to what the article says, if physically fastened to the floor, it should harvest kinetic energy from the earth by utilizing gyroscopic precession.

I do not own a 3D printer and that would make my linking of the 2 mechanisms so much easier. I think I might run over to my parents house and grab the tote of LEGO and see if I can replicate that way. I can fairly easily connect the 2 mechanisms with gears.

I only share this now because your discoveries match up with this quite well and others should see this and try to refine it.

Sorry about your arm - really that sucks. Thanks for being so open with your research - it's what compels me to do the same.

silent

LOL intentionally aiming to harness the planet's KE is terrifying - i'm trying to reassure myself my current scheme has no effect on Earth's resting momentum state, but we must never forget the 1717 Christmas flood that coincided with Bessler's longest and most powerful demonstration! If we're successful, energy usage will inevitably skyrocket. The same concerns apply to harnessing vacuum energy / ZPE - the belief that near-infinite energy density makes it in anyway safe or sustainable is counter-logical if you just consider that we're talking about pulling just a few bricks - just a few tiny bricks - from the bottom of an infinitely-tall jenga tower.. that we're in.. We need to be sure we're not sitting on the wrong end of the branch we're sawing..

But your fantastic rig does indeed manifest the effect i'm playing with. If you lock the orbiting rotors at any angle, then the net system MoI is a function of the precise orbital-radial distribution of the masses - their distance from the orbital axis..

..but as soon as they're allowed or impelled to rotate or swing independently, your net system MoI simply devolves to the net mass of each orbiting rotor, focused at its axis, regardless of how far 'in' or 'out' the actual masses themselves are.

If your orbiting rotors were extendable / retractable you could replicate the above gain, however, as the latter sim demonstrates, you don't need that just to momentarily see the gain - spin her up with one or both arms temporarily locked, oriented radially (one mass in, one out), then allow or cause them to rotate too, and your orbital velocity should instantly kick up - doesn't matter how fast or slow the axial rotations are..

But as ever, much too early to be encouraging builds, things usually develop quite fast so let's see where this leads..

[MrVibrating]

To help elucidate the gain principle, here some further detail is added to the MoI meter:



The grey trace displays the MoI as calculated by absolute mr² relative to the orbital axis - so it's dependent upon the specific orbital radius of each mass.

As you can see, it completely ignores the instant halving of the actual net system MoI, and only slopes down to meet it due to the radial retraction of the masses!

In the prior sim demonstrating what happens without the radial retraction, that grey trace is hidden underneath the orange 'momentum' one - but it just sails straight over the top of the actual MoI chasm like it ain't there..

..at that point, the system suddenly has twice as much KE as a 'Rot KE' meter fed by that MoI calc is able to calculate! So "kinetic() minus Radial KE" would still read as 16 J, but ½Iw² would only read 8 J! Likewise, net momentum would read as 32 kg-m²-rad/s.. completely confused results.. and this is what happened on the previous axial-to-orbital tests. I fell back on the kinetic() value since that was all i needed to know at the time, but missed an open goal there..

The "conditional inertia" is two independent MoI calcs, correlated by an if/then conjunction, sharing the same trigger as the orbiting motors. Without a logical operation, there is no 'correct' single formula..

The actual MoI change is binary! It just flips instantaneously! Velocity rise without acceleration! An infinite rate-of-change of velocity! At C, at the very least..

For a sanity-check, i tried raising the masses of the three white disc bodies to 1 kg / MoI = 2 each, but while this reduces the gain to a little over 5 J, it has no effect on the manner in which it manifests - instantaneously, again. A binary change in speed - mechanical velocity - and thus RKE - sans any acceleration at all.. No slope! It just 'switches' velocity.. and energy! Then simply move the masses into their axial centers, and that gain's yours in the bag!

I keep going back to those torque * angle plots - maybe there's some kind of issue with the formulas or something? Something silly that's getting missed or slipping thru... yet they're just torque times angle, per motor - no mistakes. The meters are working correctly. The motors are turning.. relative to the main axis, anyway.. yet they're not accelerating anything, hence there's no work being done, and so no torque being applied..! So there's no input energy! The 'input workload' is primarily motion control, rather than substantive F*d..

The other cool trick is that inbound vs outbound CF work profiles cancel with respect to the orbital CF profile! That does not occur for axial CF profiles! Remember previously i showed it was possible to change GPE without changing MoI, by carefully controlling the respective radial velocities of inbound vs outbound masses? So it's possible to get 'em to cancel, but requires moving them at different speeds / radial accelerations, so over differing radial distances with respect to time & angle. Generally tho, since MoI squares with radius, higher-radii translations cause a much greater change in MoI than lower-radii ones over equal radial distance. Yet with orbital CF's, in this case at least, it appears that natural asymmetry is deftly circumvented - inbound and outbound integrals are mirror opposites, summing to zero!

It is this peculiarity that enables us to snatch up the gain, unhindered by the usual quagmire of axial CF.

LOL after all that effort painstakingly nudging momentum-from-gravity, nurturing it over 3 minute runs and trying to grow it into OU KE, now this - instant 200%, at lightspeed, on a silver friggin' platter, it's like "Bing! Your 200%, sir"... it's on-tap!

[Georg Künstler]

MrVibrating wrote:

What would be really cool would be a demonstration of this gain using a GPE output at one end, raising a GPE input twice the size at the other.. without using motors; if they're really performing no work, presumably they can be replaced with simple pivots and something to just nudge the rotors into rotation.

,

You describe what I am doing with my gravity converter, so the build is on the way. We will get the demonstration soon.
The construction differs in that way that one weight is lifted nearer to the rim, the other nearer to the axle. As Bessler said weights act in pairs.
It is a combination of the move,
both weights are lifted on a different radius of the wheel and get GPE.
An overweight and overweighted function,
caused by different acceleration.

[silent]

.

[agor95]

Excitement, Enthusiasum & Co-operation - What has happened to this forum :-)

Ho and some good old dry humor.

[MrVibrating]

A quick diagram of the gain principle:

[silent]

.