"The Impossibility of Perpetual Motion Machines"
Moderator: scott
re: "The Impossibility of Perpetual Motion Machines&
double post
Last edited by Senax on Sat May 25, 2019 5:01 pm, edited 2 times in total.
AVE MARIA, gratia plena, Dominus tecum.
Ô Marie, conçue sans péché, priez pour nous qui avons recours à vous.
re: "The Impossibility of Perpetual Motion Machines&quo
Energy can't be extracted for NG but NG can be used as a
catalyst to extract energy from EG - as will be shown. 😁
It can be extracted from inertial mass. More specifically from its reciprocal.
catalyst to extract energy from EG - as will be shown. 😁
It can be extracted from inertial mass. More specifically from its reciprocal.
AVE MARIA, gratia plena, Dominus tecum.
Ô Marie, conçue sans péché, priez pour nous qui avons recours à vous.
-
MrVibrating
- Addict
- Posts: 2879
- Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2010 12:19 am
- Location: W3
What i've been thinking, lately, is that there's actually no such thing as the law of conservation of energy, in terms of something literally codified into the 'rules' of the universe. Obviously, there's no dusty great ledger kept somewhere where all these supposed laws are laid down.. rather, they're epiphenomena of interactions in more fundamental fields.
I'm talking principally about mechanical energy here - KE.
CoE doesn't exist. It's a purely human construct, describing an emergent phenomenon that is dependent upon Newton's three laws of motion, which themselves fall out of the nature of the Higgs interaction endowing matter with mass and thus inertia, which in turn depends upon the interactions between the dichotomy of integer versus half-spin particles that constitute fermions and bosons, respectively comprising all baryonic matter plus the four fundamental forces / fields on opposite sides of the Pauli exclusion principle, and on and on down we go... similarly, we could describe the Higgs interaction - and thus mass and inertia - in relativistic terms of a massive particle's deceleration from lightspeed, etc.: the point is, that what we consider the inviolable 'law' of CoE isn't written in stone anywhere on that descent; yes, quantisation exists, but the quantity we call "kinetic energy" falls out of an interaction between force-mediating bosons that inhabit a timeless, space-less universe more akin to a singularity, versus masses and charges that are very much confined to the same 4D manifold we're observing from, and the inherent energy symmetry of these interactions are in turn a consequence of the time-invariant components of that interaction; for example, 1 kg is always 1 kg regardless of where, when or at what speed (mass constancy), 1 meter is always 1 meter, and likewise the values of the fundamental forces (the Higgs and the EM constant (alpha) are time-invariant, and closed-loop trajectories through static fields yield zero net energy, yada yada..
All of which is a typically long-winded way of saying that there is only conservation of momentum. And even then, you gotta check the small-print..
The challenge of mechanical over-unity, or "perpetual motion" as commonly held, is not CoE, for there never was any such adversary...
The real priority is N3, and specifically, any inherent limits of its terms. Motion's relative, speed's relative, and thus so is KE.
Have you ever wondered about the reason underlying the equality of the PE and KE formulations? Think about it now - we calculate, say, GPE in terms gravity times height times mass. But when dropped from that height, we calculate the final KE in terms of the mass, speed and velocity. This may be a hard question to hold in one's mind but try it; why are these two metrics equivalent, based as they are upon different dimensions and fields?
If you can hold that question in your thoughts for long enough, you realise that its solution is simply the conservation of momentum - embodied principally in N3 and the equality of opposing momenta and its resulting net constancy. Throw a dart at a dartboard in a rolling train carriage and a static observer on the platform will see the resulting KE multiplied up by the train's own velocity, so whilst Alice might only have expended 1 Joule, Bob sees the dart's KE increase by 2 J..
..only, he also sees a very slight deceleration of the whole train, thus preserving its net momentum of train-plus-dart. When the dart lands on the board and stops, the train speeds up again, just a teeny bit... and when admitting this small transient drop in speed multiplied up by the greater mass of the train, it comes in at exactly 1 J, eliminating any trace of the 'gain'.
So what happened? Alice's muscles exerted a given amount of force or torque over a given range of elbow action - so an input energy in the form of PE - converted to an increase in speed of the dart, but also a decrease in speed of the whole train; thus the energy put into the dart was less than the 1 J of work she expended, with the remainder taken out of the train's KE; in short, performing 'positive' work upon the dart also applied negative work to the whole train, undoing its KE.. and forgive me, but the only thing enforcing CoE there is N3.
It just seems so obvious and self-explantory. Bessler only ever displayed vertical wheels. Obviously, gravity is a dependent factor, yet we know it's also time-invariant, hence "closed loops / zero energy" etc., so OB schemes are generally a hiding to nowhere, as Bessler himself confesses..
Yet in spite of these facts, his one-way wheels were self-starting and statorless, hence could only be motivated by a GPE / 'classic OB' interaction; the gain principle depended upon the constant rise and fall of masses..
Gravity's not a force. Stop the presses eh? It's an ambient time-rate-of-change of momentum. An apparently-unlimited momentum source & sink, in which we're enveloped. The equality of 'upwards' versus 'downwards' momentum exchanged in any gravitational interaction - the "N3 for gravitating systems" - turns out to be dependent not upon the spatial symmetry of the given input / output height, but rather the time symmetry of the 'time spent gravitating' during the rising and falling legs of the trajectory; yes, the conservation of momentum between bodies interacting gravitationally is dependent upon a time symmetry, not a spatial one! Which of course would be moot, were it not for the fact that it is also possible to apply transiently 'reactionless' forces to modify the 'time spent gravitating' on either side of an interaction, and thus yielding a momentum gain, or loss.
I've demonstrated two such examples of transiently reactionless forces in recent months; firstly, via the 'ice-skater effect' of active MoI changes, and also, via active 'GPE asymmetries' - that is, classic, futile 'OB' schemes, instead fed by internal energy supply.
These latter examples are what i'm currently focused on. To give an impression of the issues at stake, consider firstly a classic unworkable 'magnet motor'; so we magically discover some method to perform the impossible hurdle of passively overcoming the 'sticky spot' - what we have is basically a free electric motor, since it's driven by the same forces, the same EM asymmetry, only here it's passive rather than active. However, such a PMM would still be very much subject to N3, as any EM motor would be.. so as the rotor spins up in one direction, an equal opposing momentum is earthed. The provenance of the energy gain simply has no bearing on the issue of CoM.
Yet, afford an otherwise-futile OB scheme this same indulgence, and we have a more novel outcome; no counter-torque appears to be applied back to the stator axis. We just pull the weights in radially at 6 o' clock BDC, re-extend them at 12 o' clock TDC, paying all the costs out of hand, and Bob's yer uncle, reactionless angular momentum, from gravity.
This is, manifestly, what Bessler was basically doing, right? A statorless, self-starting vertical wheel simply has no other possible explanation.
You create KE by causing an effective violation of N3 - applying an acceleration, without incurring an equal counter-momentum. The rules DO NOT say "no creation / destruction", what they DO stipulate is CoM... but 'momentum' is a function of velocity, which is a function of time-rate-of-change of position, yet as noted, gravity is actually also a time-constant ambient rate of change of momentum, so there's no such thing as 'terminal velocity', for example..
Classic PMM's like Bessler's aren't against natures laws, they are their ultimate validations! Every step in Bessler's OU cycle was fully dependent upon all laws holding precisely as they're supposed to; it worked because of their validity, and not in spite of them!
People, all we're really talking about with all this PMM guff is mechanical OU. All we're really dealing with is the energy cost, and resulting value, of momentum. Breaking that singular symmetry. Standing in our way is N3. The basic KE equation is ½mV², according to which the base-rate cost of generating momentum is ½ J / kg-m/s.
So to create energy ex nihilo we need to keep buying momentum at the lowest rates possible - which means the 'stator' against which the 'rotor' is torqued must somehow rotate around with it; "everything must go around together" (EMGAT), thus resetting the relative velocity between the two co-rotating inertias to zero and thus sliding back down the V² escalator on the energy cost of momentum each and every cycle, at least up to some practically-limited speed.. ½mV² is the law, and it sets both the energy cost of momentum production - the required PE expenditure - as well as the resulting KE value. The law clearly states "work around N3 and you can buy 50 J of KE for just 5 J" if you read between the lines - it all comes down to the relative nature of 'velocity' in the ½mV² equation. This ain't rocket science, people; buy low, sell high! OK we can't affect the sale value - 1 J of KE is always just 1 J - but we can purchase it for just half a Joule if we somehow sidestep N3 & CoM..
Bessler's success means that's the golden egg lying exposed, unnoticed, that we should all be on the lookout for.. there's an N3 symmetry break afforded by the fact that equality of momentum to counter-momentum between gravitating bodies is a temporal, not spatial, symmetry, and thus that gravity combined with transiently-reactionless accelerations (per the ice-skater effect) causes asymmetric distributions of momentum and counter-momentum, between earth and the Bessler wheel. The wheel thus 'gains' rotational kinetic energy not because it could ever have an excess (as determined by ½MOI*RPM²), but because the input torque * angle was effectively reactionless, resulting in stator and rotor co-accelerating one another together; in a nutshell, creating a divergent inertial frame.
What's a divergent inertial frame? One example would be that of Alice playing darts back in the train carriage, just with a reactionless elbow; she spends 1 J, Bob sees 2 J, and both are equally right without contradiction! The train's entered the Twilight zone, breaking consistency with all other reference frames in the universe - everyone everywhere sees the same 2 J outcome as Bob, yet Alice only ever performs 1 J of work.
Worse, however, is that the net system now has an increase in momentum. By 'net system', here, we're referring to the universe at large. Certainly, any statorless motor - call it a Bessler wheel or what-have-you - that nonetheless gains momentum whilst outputting work - is changing Earth's resting momentum state. Momentum's the definitive conserved quantity...
"Causality"... now that's getting to the real legal-talk. It's not whether or not we can do it.. but whether we can tame it, and avoid Bessler's mistake of running lone wheels.. because the Castle Weissensstein demo and the 1717 Christmas floods are now very much a single incident, in my mind, rather than disparate events; he was making shed loads of momentum-from-gravity in a statorless motor for 5 weeks through autumn/winter... none of it is being cancelled out by a mutual opposite... just plucked from gravity and sunk to earth via the applied loads and bearings... an MoI of maybe a tonne-m²-rad/s, accelerating to 26 RPM / 2.72 rad/s in a "few seconds" would mean Earth's resting momentum state was changing by around 25 kg-m²-rad/s per second, for five weeks non-stop.. we could divide that by the planet's mass to get the range of the acceleration change, if only we knew the axis of orientation of the momentum asymmetry - ie. the vector of the diverging inertial frame... it could be linear, as in 'up' vs 'down', in which case each 'power stroke' in a Bessler wheel propels the Earth up a bit, or down a bit.. thus inadvertently propelling us through space, altering our solar orbit etc., or else, angular, meaning we're altering our spin and/or precession rates, so affecting the day lengths / seasons, but without changing the solar orbit. Either or both outcomes are simply an inevitable certainty of everything we consider "a successful outcome" to look like; Alice can buy cut-price angular momentum to cash-in on its inherent KE value, but Bob sees the whole planet accelerate or decelerate in whatever the opposite direction..
For now we're still safe - i can't figure out how to make this work for the life of me! I can see all the pieces are there... just waiting on whatever flash of prespiration's required to finally get it together.. i can perform all the steps individually, it's just getting that sequence of conditions right; ideally, paying, say, 10 * ½ J = 5 J to buy ten discrete 1 m/s accelerations of 1 kg of mass - as we're perfectly entitled to per ½mV² - and then trading in the resulting 10 kg-m/s of momentum for its actual KE value of 50 J, exactly what ½mV² says it's worth, read it and weep, type stuff..
Causality. Determinism. Death and taxes. They're 'laws'. Physics doesn't tell us we can't create energy, it just warns us to make sure we cancel out all stray momenta.. and even then, to expect a corresponding levy on the vacuum-energy flux underpinning the Higgs interaction and thus an inevitable risk of precipitating a "big crunch"-type scenario at some point downstream..
Unintended consequences. Murphy's. "If it looks too good to be true..". All, definitely, laws.
I'm talking principally about mechanical energy here - KE.
CoE doesn't exist. It's a purely human construct, describing an emergent phenomenon that is dependent upon Newton's three laws of motion, which themselves fall out of the nature of the Higgs interaction endowing matter with mass and thus inertia, which in turn depends upon the interactions between the dichotomy of integer versus half-spin particles that constitute fermions and bosons, respectively comprising all baryonic matter plus the four fundamental forces / fields on opposite sides of the Pauli exclusion principle, and on and on down we go... similarly, we could describe the Higgs interaction - and thus mass and inertia - in relativistic terms of a massive particle's deceleration from lightspeed, etc.: the point is, that what we consider the inviolable 'law' of CoE isn't written in stone anywhere on that descent; yes, quantisation exists, but the quantity we call "kinetic energy" falls out of an interaction between force-mediating bosons that inhabit a timeless, space-less universe more akin to a singularity, versus masses and charges that are very much confined to the same 4D manifold we're observing from, and the inherent energy symmetry of these interactions are in turn a consequence of the time-invariant components of that interaction; for example, 1 kg is always 1 kg regardless of where, when or at what speed (mass constancy), 1 meter is always 1 meter, and likewise the values of the fundamental forces (the Higgs and the EM constant (alpha) are time-invariant, and closed-loop trajectories through static fields yield zero net energy, yada yada..
All of which is a typically long-winded way of saying that there is only conservation of momentum. And even then, you gotta check the small-print..
The challenge of mechanical over-unity, or "perpetual motion" as commonly held, is not CoE, for there never was any such adversary...
The real priority is N3, and specifically, any inherent limits of its terms. Motion's relative, speed's relative, and thus so is KE.
Have you ever wondered about the reason underlying the equality of the PE and KE formulations? Think about it now - we calculate, say, GPE in terms gravity times height times mass. But when dropped from that height, we calculate the final KE in terms of the mass, speed and velocity. This may be a hard question to hold in one's mind but try it; why are these two metrics equivalent, based as they are upon different dimensions and fields?
If you can hold that question in your thoughts for long enough, you realise that its solution is simply the conservation of momentum - embodied principally in N3 and the equality of opposing momenta and its resulting net constancy. Throw a dart at a dartboard in a rolling train carriage and a static observer on the platform will see the resulting KE multiplied up by the train's own velocity, so whilst Alice might only have expended 1 Joule, Bob sees the dart's KE increase by 2 J..
..only, he also sees a very slight deceleration of the whole train, thus preserving its net momentum of train-plus-dart. When the dart lands on the board and stops, the train speeds up again, just a teeny bit... and when admitting this small transient drop in speed multiplied up by the greater mass of the train, it comes in at exactly 1 J, eliminating any trace of the 'gain'.
So what happened? Alice's muscles exerted a given amount of force or torque over a given range of elbow action - so an input energy in the form of PE - converted to an increase in speed of the dart, but also a decrease in speed of the whole train; thus the energy put into the dart was less than the 1 J of work she expended, with the remainder taken out of the train's KE; in short, performing 'positive' work upon the dart also applied negative work to the whole train, undoing its KE.. and forgive me, but the only thing enforcing CoE there is N3.
It just seems so obvious and self-explantory. Bessler only ever displayed vertical wheels. Obviously, gravity is a dependent factor, yet we know it's also time-invariant, hence "closed loops / zero energy" etc., so OB schemes are generally a hiding to nowhere, as Bessler himself confesses..
Yet in spite of these facts, his one-way wheels were self-starting and statorless, hence could only be motivated by a GPE / 'classic OB' interaction; the gain principle depended upon the constant rise and fall of masses..
Gravity's not a force. Stop the presses eh? It's an ambient time-rate-of-change of momentum. An apparently-unlimited momentum source & sink, in which we're enveloped. The equality of 'upwards' versus 'downwards' momentum exchanged in any gravitational interaction - the "N3 for gravitating systems" - turns out to be dependent not upon the spatial symmetry of the given input / output height, but rather the time symmetry of the 'time spent gravitating' during the rising and falling legs of the trajectory; yes, the conservation of momentum between bodies interacting gravitationally is dependent upon a time symmetry, not a spatial one! Which of course would be moot, were it not for the fact that it is also possible to apply transiently 'reactionless' forces to modify the 'time spent gravitating' on either side of an interaction, and thus yielding a momentum gain, or loss.
I've demonstrated two such examples of transiently reactionless forces in recent months; firstly, via the 'ice-skater effect' of active MoI changes, and also, via active 'GPE asymmetries' - that is, classic, futile 'OB' schemes, instead fed by internal energy supply.
These latter examples are what i'm currently focused on. To give an impression of the issues at stake, consider firstly a classic unworkable 'magnet motor'; so we magically discover some method to perform the impossible hurdle of passively overcoming the 'sticky spot' - what we have is basically a free electric motor, since it's driven by the same forces, the same EM asymmetry, only here it's passive rather than active. However, such a PMM would still be very much subject to N3, as any EM motor would be.. so as the rotor spins up in one direction, an equal opposing momentum is earthed. The provenance of the energy gain simply has no bearing on the issue of CoM.
Yet, afford an otherwise-futile OB scheme this same indulgence, and we have a more novel outcome; no counter-torque appears to be applied back to the stator axis. We just pull the weights in radially at 6 o' clock BDC, re-extend them at 12 o' clock TDC, paying all the costs out of hand, and Bob's yer uncle, reactionless angular momentum, from gravity.
This is, manifestly, what Bessler was basically doing, right? A statorless, self-starting vertical wheel simply has no other possible explanation.
You create KE by causing an effective violation of N3 - applying an acceleration, without incurring an equal counter-momentum. The rules DO NOT say "no creation / destruction", what they DO stipulate is CoM... but 'momentum' is a function of velocity, which is a function of time-rate-of-change of position, yet as noted, gravity is actually also a time-constant ambient rate of change of momentum, so there's no such thing as 'terminal velocity', for example..
Classic PMM's like Bessler's aren't against natures laws, they are their ultimate validations! Every step in Bessler's OU cycle was fully dependent upon all laws holding precisely as they're supposed to; it worked because of their validity, and not in spite of them!
People, all we're really talking about with all this PMM guff is mechanical OU. All we're really dealing with is the energy cost, and resulting value, of momentum. Breaking that singular symmetry. Standing in our way is N3. The basic KE equation is ½mV², according to which the base-rate cost of generating momentum is ½ J / kg-m/s.
So to create energy ex nihilo we need to keep buying momentum at the lowest rates possible - which means the 'stator' against which the 'rotor' is torqued must somehow rotate around with it; "everything must go around together" (EMGAT), thus resetting the relative velocity between the two co-rotating inertias to zero and thus sliding back down the V² escalator on the energy cost of momentum each and every cycle, at least up to some practically-limited speed.. ½mV² is the law, and it sets both the energy cost of momentum production - the required PE expenditure - as well as the resulting KE value. The law clearly states "work around N3 and you can buy 50 J of KE for just 5 J" if you read between the lines - it all comes down to the relative nature of 'velocity' in the ½mV² equation. This ain't rocket science, people; buy low, sell high! OK we can't affect the sale value - 1 J of KE is always just 1 J - but we can purchase it for just half a Joule if we somehow sidestep N3 & CoM..
Bessler's success means that's the golden egg lying exposed, unnoticed, that we should all be on the lookout for.. there's an N3 symmetry break afforded by the fact that equality of momentum to counter-momentum between gravitating bodies is a temporal, not spatial, symmetry, and thus that gravity combined with transiently-reactionless accelerations (per the ice-skater effect) causes asymmetric distributions of momentum and counter-momentum, between earth and the Bessler wheel. The wheel thus 'gains' rotational kinetic energy not because it could ever have an excess (as determined by ½MOI*RPM²), but because the input torque * angle was effectively reactionless, resulting in stator and rotor co-accelerating one another together; in a nutshell, creating a divergent inertial frame.
What's a divergent inertial frame? One example would be that of Alice playing darts back in the train carriage, just with a reactionless elbow; she spends 1 J, Bob sees 2 J, and both are equally right without contradiction! The train's entered the Twilight zone, breaking consistency with all other reference frames in the universe - everyone everywhere sees the same 2 J outcome as Bob, yet Alice only ever performs 1 J of work.
Worse, however, is that the net system now has an increase in momentum. By 'net system', here, we're referring to the universe at large. Certainly, any statorless motor - call it a Bessler wheel or what-have-you - that nonetheless gains momentum whilst outputting work - is changing Earth's resting momentum state. Momentum's the definitive conserved quantity...
"Causality"... now that's getting to the real legal-talk. It's not whether or not we can do it.. but whether we can tame it, and avoid Bessler's mistake of running lone wheels.. because the Castle Weissensstein demo and the 1717 Christmas floods are now very much a single incident, in my mind, rather than disparate events; he was making shed loads of momentum-from-gravity in a statorless motor for 5 weeks through autumn/winter... none of it is being cancelled out by a mutual opposite... just plucked from gravity and sunk to earth via the applied loads and bearings... an MoI of maybe a tonne-m²-rad/s, accelerating to 26 RPM / 2.72 rad/s in a "few seconds" would mean Earth's resting momentum state was changing by around 25 kg-m²-rad/s per second, for five weeks non-stop.. we could divide that by the planet's mass to get the range of the acceleration change, if only we knew the axis of orientation of the momentum asymmetry - ie. the vector of the diverging inertial frame... it could be linear, as in 'up' vs 'down', in which case each 'power stroke' in a Bessler wheel propels the Earth up a bit, or down a bit.. thus inadvertently propelling us through space, altering our solar orbit etc., or else, angular, meaning we're altering our spin and/or precession rates, so affecting the day lengths / seasons, but without changing the solar orbit. Either or both outcomes are simply an inevitable certainty of everything we consider "a successful outcome" to look like; Alice can buy cut-price angular momentum to cash-in on its inherent KE value, but Bob sees the whole planet accelerate or decelerate in whatever the opposite direction..
For now we're still safe - i can't figure out how to make this work for the life of me! I can see all the pieces are there... just waiting on whatever flash of prespiration's required to finally get it together.. i can perform all the steps individually, it's just getting that sequence of conditions right; ideally, paying, say, 10 * ½ J = 5 J to buy ten discrete 1 m/s accelerations of 1 kg of mass - as we're perfectly entitled to per ½mV² - and then trading in the resulting 10 kg-m/s of momentum for its actual KE value of 50 J, exactly what ½mV² says it's worth, read it and weep, type stuff..
Causality. Determinism. Death and taxes. They're 'laws'. Physics doesn't tell us we can't create energy, it just warns us to make sure we cancel out all stray momenta.. and even then, to expect a corresponding levy on the vacuum-energy flux underpinning the Higgs interaction and thus an inevitable risk of precipitating a "big crunch"-type scenario at some point downstream..
Unintended consequences. Murphy's. "If it looks too good to be true..". All, definitely, laws.
re: "The Impossibility of Perpetual Motion Machines&
Holy Archimedes on a teeter totter....
So basically what you try to say is that you don't understand the equality and where this mysterious V-squared comes from, yet is a convenient black-box to "explain" the convoluted economics of momentum.
But don't ask me.
Besides that I already put the PE-KE relation out on this forum, I'm likely still on ignore for disproving mrV's ideas anyway.
So basically what you try to say is that you don't understand the equality and where this mysterious V-squared comes from, yet is a convenient black-box to "explain" the convoluted economics of momentum.
But don't ask me.
Besides that I already put the PE-KE relation out on this forum, I'm likely still on ignore for disproving mrV's ideas anyway.
Marchello E.
-- May the force lift you up. In case it doesn't, try something else.---
-- May the force lift you up. In case it doesn't, try something else.---
-
MrVibrating
- Addict
- Posts: 2879
- Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2010 12:19 am
- Location: W3
@ME
The V^2 multiplier's caused by N3, as explained in depth already. It's due to the increasing distance over which a force must be applied between two inertias in order to continue accelerating, hence the implicit necessity of 'EMGAT' - consolidating each momentum gain cycle with an inelastic collision.
And yes, you're still on ignore, but i still see your posts unless i log in.
The V^2 multiplier's caused by N3, as explained in depth already. It's due to the increasing distance over which a force must be applied between two inertias in order to continue accelerating, hence the implicit necessity of 'EMGAT' - consolidating each momentum gain cycle with an inelastic collision.
And yes, you're still on ignore, but i still see your posts unless i log in.
re: "The Impossibility of Perpetual Motion Machines&quo
@Stealthy MrVibrating
Explained wrong.
V-squared is caused by N2, not N3
You can have N3 in static friction... Thus: no V-squared will emerge.
What you want is to break N3.
For that you need a spontaneous N2.
This N2 explosion is not the problem:Throw things off a cliff, or blow it up... V-squared appears.
The challenge is, as always but with less words, to find a mechanism that resets the situation with less energy than you initially got out of the N2.
I like your brainstorms, it doesn't mean I agree.
Explained wrong.
V-squared is caused by N2, not N3
You can have N3 in static friction... Thus: no V-squared will emerge.
What you want is to break N3.
For that you need a spontaneous N2.
This N2 explosion is not the problem:Throw things off a cliff, or blow it up... V-squared appears.
The challenge is, as always but with less words, to find a mechanism that resets the situation with less energy than you initially got out of the N2.
I like your brainstorms, it doesn't mean I agree.
Marchello E.
-- May the force lift you up. In case it doesn't, try something else.---
-- May the force lift you up. In case it doesn't, try something else.---
-
MrVibrating
- Addict
- Posts: 2879
- Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2010 12:19 am
- Location: W3
@ME
KE squares with velocity because of the increasing distance between whatever inertia you're accelerating, and whatever other inertia you're accelerating it against. You cannot, generally, apply a force to an inertia unilaterally; raising some momentum in one direction invariably means raising equal counter-momentum in the other.
This generally falls under the remit of 'N3', in my understanding..
If exploiting an effective N2 break (F=mA and its inversions) enabled the accumulation of cheap momentum, i'd be up for some of that too.. But gravity's already an effective N2 violation, per Galileo's principle; the acceleration's independent of the mass, and uniform for rock and feather.. Can you see a way to get ahead from that fact alone?
Which is not to scoff - i'm already exploiting that very principle to cyclically sink and source momentum directly to and from gravity, thus rendering an effective N3 break - ie. gaining unidirectional momentum in an otherwise-closed system of masses interacting about a common axis - despite mass constancy and the speed of light etc. etc. and gaining momentum in a statorless system by any means has to be the first start in our endeavour.. also however, this subject segues nicely back into the thread topic; part of the reason we're so incredulous about the prospect for a 'PMM / gravity wheel' is that we're so used to regarding our terrestrial reference frame as 'stationary'..
It's hard-wired into us - stuff what moves, moves relative to the ground, innit. The world is stationary, and we move through it. Thus, to all intents and purposes, in our everyday lived-experience, we're literally 'at rest', on the sofa. We instinctively regard our world as an inertial reference frame!
Yet it isn't, physically! Besides the Coriolis force and centrifugal force, neither of which seem useful to us in and of themselves, we have gravity. Equivalent to a uniform acceleration. Not a distinguishing feature of an 'inertial reference frame'...
..so we're in a non-inertial frame. The minimally-simple laws of physics do not strictly apply; more to the point, a system's not necessarily thermodynamically closed if it can exchange momentum with a fundamental field that permeates its space - something we all learn how to do as kids on playground swings, albeit in an oscillating manner and so without breaking symmetry. The question remains, however, whether a 360° kiiker is actually applying equal opposite counter-momentum back to Earth, or not..
..either way, accumulating momentum at a speed-invariant unit energy cost is an inherently-OU process - the KE equation says we can give 1 kg of mass 1 kg-m/s of momentum for ½ a Joule; ten such purchases nets us 10 kg-m/s for 5 J, yet at 10 m/s 1 kg has 50 J, according to that same KE equation; the only difference is the effective value of "V" in ½mV².. and velocity's relative because motion's relative, because momentum's conserved in inertial interactions, and it is the universal assumption of CoM that underwrites the conservation of energy between different frames of reference: throwing a dart on a moving train doesn't endow it with excess KE relative to the platform, because of the corresponding counter-acceleration of the train-plus-darts-game, or else the energy being expended in resisting it.
Start with "how to gain momentum in a statorless vertical wheel" and work from there; the fact that gravity's already an effective N2 violation is probably the best head-start we're gonna get..
KE squares with velocity because of the increasing distance between whatever inertia you're accelerating, and whatever other inertia you're accelerating it against. You cannot, generally, apply a force to an inertia unilaterally; raising some momentum in one direction invariably means raising equal counter-momentum in the other.
This generally falls under the remit of 'N3', in my understanding..
If exploiting an effective N2 break (F=mA and its inversions) enabled the accumulation of cheap momentum, i'd be up for some of that too.. But gravity's already an effective N2 violation, per Galileo's principle; the acceleration's independent of the mass, and uniform for rock and feather.. Can you see a way to get ahead from that fact alone?
Which is not to scoff - i'm already exploiting that very principle to cyclically sink and source momentum directly to and from gravity, thus rendering an effective N3 break - ie. gaining unidirectional momentum in an otherwise-closed system of masses interacting about a common axis - despite mass constancy and the speed of light etc. etc. and gaining momentum in a statorless system by any means has to be the first start in our endeavour.. also however, this subject segues nicely back into the thread topic; part of the reason we're so incredulous about the prospect for a 'PMM / gravity wheel' is that we're so used to regarding our terrestrial reference frame as 'stationary'..
It's hard-wired into us - stuff what moves, moves relative to the ground, innit. The world is stationary, and we move through it. Thus, to all intents and purposes, in our everyday lived-experience, we're literally 'at rest', on the sofa. We instinctively regard our world as an inertial reference frame!
Yet it isn't, physically! Besides the Coriolis force and centrifugal force, neither of which seem useful to us in and of themselves, we have gravity. Equivalent to a uniform acceleration. Not a distinguishing feature of an 'inertial reference frame'...
..so we're in a non-inertial frame. The minimally-simple laws of physics do not strictly apply; more to the point, a system's not necessarily thermodynamically closed if it can exchange momentum with a fundamental field that permeates its space - something we all learn how to do as kids on playground swings, albeit in an oscillating manner and so without breaking symmetry. The question remains, however, whether a 360° kiiker is actually applying equal opposite counter-momentum back to Earth, or not..
..either way, accumulating momentum at a speed-invariant unit energy cost is an inherently-OU process - the KE equation says we can give 1 kg of mass 1 kg-m/s of momentum for ½ a Joule; ten such purchases nets us 10 kg-m/s for 5 J, yet at 10 m/s 1 kg has 50 J, according to that same KE equation; the only difference is the effective value of "V" in ½mV².. and velocity's relative because motion's relative, because momentum's conserved in inertial interactions, and it is the universal assumption of CoM that underwrites the conservation of energy between different frames of reference: throwing a dart on a moving train doesn't endow it with excess KE relative to the platform, because of the corresponding counter-acceleration of the train-plus-darts-game, or else the energy being expended in resisting it.
Start with "how to gain momentum in a statorless vertical wheel" and work from there; the fact that gravity's already an effective N2 violation is probably the best head-start we're gonna get..
re: "The Impossibility of Perpetual Motion Machines&
Mrvibrating is correct. Thats what ive been saying!
Psst a little secret ( gravity IS acceleration over time )! (acceleration is relative) I also believe it us the reason for time dilation probably even time itself. I have thought before that the reason for time slowing at various speeds is not because of the speed of light but the acceleration needed to reach that speed. The acceleration causes time to slow once you reach x speed time returns to normal. So increase gravity ( acceleration ) decrease time, increase gravity ( deceleration) increase time . Think about that for a while!!
Psst a little secret ( gravity IS acceleration over time )! (acceleration is relative) I also believe it us the reason for time dilation probably even time itself. I have thought before that the reason for time slowing at various speeds is not because of the speed of light but the acceleration needed to reach that speed. The acceleration causes time to slow once you reach x speed time returns to normal. So increase gravity ( acceleration ) decrease time, increase gravity ( deceleration) increase time . Think about that for a while!!
re: "The Impossibility of Perpetual Motion Machines&quo
The elephant in the room is some get an idea and think no one
else has had the very same idea. Pissst, this is not novel.
else has had the very same idea. Pissst, this is not novel.
........................¯\_(ツ)_/¯
¯\_(ツ)_/¯ the future is here ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Advocate of God Almighty, maker of heaven and earth and redeemer of my soul.
Walter Clarkson
© 2023 Walter W. Clarkson, LLC
All rights reserved. Do not even quote me w/o my expressed written consent.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯ the future is here ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Advocate of God Almighty, maker of heaven and earth and redeemer of my soul.
Walter Clarkson
© 2023 Walter W. Clarkson, LLC
All rights reserved. Do not even quote me w/o my expressed written consent.
re: "The Impossibility of Perpetual Motion Machines&quo
Well it was a new thought that occured to me about 3 years ago .