Mate, as much as you can understand is all the assurance there can be... twice the mass at half the radius equals twice the RPM and KE - so i have to kind of wash my hands of that much; rotKE = ½Iw² says that when MoI = mr² changes from 16 down to 8, energy doubles from 8, up to 16 J. None of that's on me, so it is what it is..silent wrote:Very nicely done! You did a good job writing this up and I actually can follow and understand most of it. So now do we have something is worth building?
silent
All the sim confirms is the basic laws of physics.
Yet at the same time, i barely go three posts these days without making a fallacious OU claim. It's just the nature of our endeavor here - in our efforts, we've committed to accept an ongoing succession of failures, but only because this is a hard thing to do! The only way to approach this kind of hubris is with that Yankee spirit..
Until validation - be that someone else here following thru the maths and willing to stick their neck out with a conclusion (just a "well if this is a mistake, i can't see it" would be a start), or else an actual build - perhaps just demonstrating that the absolute orbital distance of the masses becomes irrelevant the moment the axial motors switch on; either would be definite cause for itchy fingers..
I can't encourage anyone to push the boat out, but anyone in the pioneering spirit who understands as much as they're intending to experimentally test, and undertake a circumspect falsification effort (as opposed to a dizzily high-hoped 'validation effort')... it's a mechanical OU claim. Very simple principle. If i had a workshop and parts bin, i'd be all over this..
No major updates thus far - i tried simply unpinning the axial rotors instead of using the motors, but since they already begin with 1 rad/s of axial rotation (due to being pinned to the orbital plane as if 'tidally locked'), and momentum's conserved, they simply continue holding that configuration; they don't halt their axial rotation automatically, so it does appear that input torque is required - but whether that's from motors or springs / GPE's or whatever, so long as its magnitude is equal to a 1 rad/s acceleration (F=mA), it's instantly reciprocated by an identical torque (same sign and magnitude), caused by the orbital MoI instantaneously collapsing from the actual orbital radii of the masses, to that of their orbiting axes instead.
Because this ceases the real rotation of the axial rotors, there's no axial CF acting on the masses - only orbital CF.
The motor's applying torque to the central rotor, but the reactive inertial torque this causes is also applying exactly the same torque back to the motor. The inertial torque associated with MoI changes is reactionless - it makes the rotor want to speed up or slow down, yet without applying counter-torque to a stator.. it's caused by conservation of angular momentum doing its thing - sustaining the product of MoI * RPM. If that means creating energy ex nihilo, whatever, it's done its job, CoE's not really its department, so long as all the momentum's accounted for.
So that's the theory, and the sim results. If it's in error (as usual), it's right there and out in the open, nothing up my sleeves..
