Decoupling Per-Cycle Momemtum Yields From RPM

[Fletcher]

MrV .. just a suggestion based on my own experiences. Sometimes as a further cross-check or further redundancy test other than swapping out comparable parts etc is I turn gravity off.

Now any movement must be initiated by adding a force vector element to mass. To simulate gravity for example. The advantage is that I can turn it on and off with ease with the 'Active When' field. X,Y co-ord, Rotation Angle etc. FYI the force vector is still visible but inactive after it is switched off etc.

After initial acceleration any movement e.g. rotation, is due to inertia and only inertia (MOI). Thus you could perhaps test your braking rig and its outputs by isolating the gravity input (via fake force) to the acceleration phase of the mass only. After that Elvis leaves the room.

[MrVibrating]

I already ran a 'no grav' variant a little while back - just to demonstrate that w/o gravity, the motor accelerates both parts equally and oppositely, respecting CoM, and with a perfect T*a integral (0.25 J for 1 rad/s relative between 1 kg-m² MoI's). The same acceleration when gravity-assisted costs 0.26 J, due to the resulting N3 break and asymmetric accelerations, and the KE value of that velocity asymmetry squares with it, hence the weight loses less KE than the rotor gains, with the difference being gain.

Cool tip FWIW tho, thanks anyway.. i like the fact that gravity here is just gravity - a uniform acceleration..

[MrVibrating]

Minor tweaks:

• 'blue' is a 2 kg 1 m radius disc with a planar MoI of 1 kg-m²

• 'green' is a 4 kg ½ m radius disc with a planar MoI of ½ kg-m², plus:

• ..the green weight is a 2 kg mass at ½ m radius, so has an orbital MoI of ½ kg-m² too, plus the same GPE as the previous 1 kg at 1 m radius

• thus green's MoI sums to '1', matching blue's

• the 'rotational damper' brake has been swapped back out for a 'motor' brake, set to a velocity of '0' (as it was in post #1), for cleaner results

Now it's more buildable, as modelled; these parts can be fabbed and slapped together with minimal fuss, and again, the MoI's can include the bodies of the motor and brake parts, sensors and anything else.

Two discs, a weight, motor, brake and controller.

Use a photosensor, Hall sensor etc. (or just a brush) to detect triggering angle.

Close-loop it with pickup coils recharging the cells / caps.

That's the full BoM for a guaranteed-OU build.

Not an especially 'authentic' Bessler Wheel, yet, but it's friggin' OU and it's here, now..

(i still can't believe i'm finally seeing the magic in action):






(..and in case anyone was wondering, no, it doesn't require 90 RPM speeds.. the tests required some initial speed, and i liked the symmetry of those numbers)



Final thought for the night - i think most if not everyone here would agree that N3 is as close to 'inviolable' as any law gets, and it would be foolish not to expect counter-momenta are being earthed via gravity here; the wheel is being accelerated against the weight, which is being attracted to earth by gravity.. hence the wheel is being accelerated against the earth.

Furthermore, the downwards acceleration of the weight is arrested by the inertia of the wheel, yet the upwards acceleration of the earth is unhindered, hence an asymmetric inertial interaction between the weight and wheel necessitates a similarly-asymmetric inertial interaction between the weight and planet, potentially inducing a net 'upwards' momentum to it..

So how valid are these concerns? Which is more likely, linear 'upwards' momentum gain, or angular, or both?

If it's angular, then contra-rotating pairs should cancel each other's stray torques out. This means it'd be practical to use mobile / embedded power plants.

If however it's linear / vertical, then does that mean we could only run static installations at opposing points on the globe?

Again, we're reminded of the Fermi paradox and Drake equation; any civilisation that discovered this exploit whilst still in a technically-naive state would likely do itself in before it had a clue what was happening; we discovered it before our own industrial revolution, so likely dodged a bullet only thanks to Bessler's inability to sell it.. But now we have a bit more ludo (ie. cynicism), maybe this is of its time..

..'cos what's more incredulous - that it'd be 'free' of all caveats? E=mC², so where's the corresponding mass deficit, here? And where's the entropy increase (as regards the energy source, not the dissipated KE)? Whatever fields this energy is drawn from must thus be at a lower potential, or throughput / flux, presumably initiating some kind of motion towards new equilibria, 'somewhere'.. at some scale or substrate..

Or was CoE always just an epiphenomenon of CoM and C all along?

[Fletcher]

Here's another tip you might like. I often bump up gravity to a clean 10 m/s^2 acceleration (rather than 9.807 units etc). It makes the head math and Outputs much easier on the eye. And easy to spot something of interest.

I do think the only way you're going to know for sure whether your hypothesis is real or whether it will evaporate as an artifact of the sim software is to build and meter something. I'd be mighty pleased for you if it turns out to be the real deal.

Your last comments remind me of the dilemma all us gravity OOB PM wheel seekers face. How to explain the energy output, when gravity is a 'field of potential'. If so the potential must be depleted and this must manifest somewhere, as you said.

If we treat 'g' as a simple acceleration (which I favour) then I don't have to answer those questions right away.

[MrVibrating]

Fuck, Marchello was right - what a bastard!

I tried lowering the startup speed each time over a few runs; the gain margin increased! But KE from a divergent FoR should increase with V, not inversely to it.. So, i tried a variation i honestly thought should make no difference - activating the brake immediately, one frame after the TRS is reached. Upon returning to 12 o' clock TDC, the KE rise + heat was equal to the input integrals.. it's unity, folks..

I can only surmise that the torques being applied during the coasting-while-gravitating phase were too small to register in the 8 digits of meter data WM exports... because how in the hell could that happen, otherwise? The rotor does undergo further acceleration from the falling weight after the TRS is reached, whilst the relative speed's being held, and the previous 'spooling GPE' test did register the corresponding motor torques, albeit only if the i-s/f setting was low enough.. but here, that made no difference..

Still, on the flip-side, planetary catastrophe avoided, so either way i'm still the hero, kinda.. (ducks)




Bollocks.

[Fletcher]

Mate .. it happens to us all. But for the record I don't think ME is a bastard for pointing that out ;7)

[WaltzCee]

I really admire Marchello's integrity. He sets the bar very high.

[agor95]

ME is valued for being a validator and should be given an apology.

Shock can trigger an expletive or two.

However when you have recovered you can do the right thing.

Cheer up - It has been a good thread.

[ME]

Fuck, Marchello was right - what a bastard!

Oh sorry about that.... :-\

With all the knowledge and skills that have been said to be missing, and with all the 'badges of honor' I've gained in this topic, it seems that I must have guessed something right then?
:-|
As far as I am concerned, that energy is not a collection of somewhat distant decimals in the margin. But unity it indeed is.

I still wonder why I was blamed for accounting energies.
Especially when a more passive element (spring) can give the same result as some actively programmed motor element.

If an overunity effect were indeed to be present in the flywheel-pendulum-configuration, that spring should at least have given some indication.
Sure, while learning what was attempted, I could have applied that spring differently to emulate the motor-effect more closely... the resulting 10rad/s would still be the same at the same energy cost.
By my logic at least: When you can explain all energy values ​​on the basis of cause and effect, there is simply no value left that can be attributed to some sporadic overunity phenomenon.
When some energy value is missing, you really have to look better. WM2d has the ability to not always show the values where you hoped to expect them. Acceleration is the most annoying one that's sometimes 'misplaced'.
But 'we' still don't know what that motor is actually doing (according to WM2D) to keep the velocity differential at that constant and supposedly not require energy to keep-up.

With the current state of physics, truly new overunity phenomena should create conflicts ... hopefully not on communication-level, for which I think it shouldn't influence the working principle much, but only where theory can't predict the outcome of that new physical phenomena.

It would indeed be interesting if a less demanding cause had the same effect as standard causes. That is basically what we want to investigate here... with less drama.
Till next time I suppose.
-

Walter. that bar is just where it always was and still is: At unity-level.
Not my fault its way up there - me thinks.

[WaltzCee]

Walter. that bar is just where it always was and still is: At unity-level.
Not my fault its way up there - me thinks.

Heads of state, and the Lords of Kingdoms, and the titans of Industry, all the way down to
little peons like me want to know how much is this going to cost me? Depends on how you
measure it.

The Flemish ell, the English ell or the French ell? Wholly ell, what the ell?

To resolve these difficulties, the powers-that-be got into the business of measuring things.
They patronized the Geeks, geeks like Newton, Bessler, Etc. to investigate how to measure
things. Bessler was a real wrench in the works.

You could look at Bessler like this. Suppose there were a monarch with a lot of debt. He consulted
his advisers and asked what can we do. His advisor suggested packaging it up into
certificates and selling it to the public. The Monarch would be curious, what's it going to
cost me? His adviser said, absolutely nothing sire. As a matter of fact we will have these
dolts pay you for the privilege.

Who could believe that? A wise Monarch would say, how the hell do you propose to do that?
His advisers would say, simple sire. They pay upfront for the certificate, say 1000 lb. And
we promise to give them two or three pence every quater for as long as they own the
certificate. Of course if they want they can sell the certificate, and the privilege of
collectiving the quarterly pences.

The Monarch said brilliant. The end.

Well, it's kind of the end. People like Newton who own pencils and paper put pencils to the
idea. They experiment. They define it mathematically. They understand crazy ideas, like
zero sum. Balance. It ain't raining Pennies from Heaven. New equations have to fit with old
equations. As things move forward, there has to be some coherence.

Newton is no longer with us. We are however very lucky to have the Marchellos of the world,
with their paper and with their pencils.

[MrVibrating]

Right, starting to think now that the whole class of gravitationally-assisted asymmetric inertial interactions - angular and linear - wherein a force is applied between two equal masses, one of which is also gravitating, is likely a dead-end.. cos what else haven't i tried there?

Which would leave just the kiiking principle - that is, an asymmetric inertial interaction between the wheel itself, and the planet, as opposed to a wheel containing an asymmetric interaction between internal masses / inertias.

There's two ways of gaining momentum from gravity this way - doing work against CF force, by increasing MoI as GPE is output, then decreasing it as it's re-input (this is how swinging / kiiking technique works); in this case, the rotational KE gain (from the OB cycle) is equal to the net input work done against CF force.. however it's also possible to do so without doing any net work against CF force, using only work done against gravity / input GPE. This is achieved by timing the radial accelerations of paired weights such that their combined orbital MoI is held constant throughout their radial translations. Here is such a system, back from page 5:


"reactive feedback" = "i have no idea how this works.. it just does!"

..so our rotational KE rise there is all paid for in the form of input GPE.

Going back to the previous rationale for resurrecting the penduwheel from page 1; there's a further timing variation that could (and arguably should) be tried here, which i haven't got around to yet:

• note that the per-cycle momentum yield is decreasing inversely to rising RPM - this, because the 'time spent gravitating' per cycle - and thus, being accelerated by it / gaining momentum from it - is diminishing, the faster it spins; the whole thread topic

• note also that the lift is not exclusively radial - the GPE is, in part, being rotated upwards, thus shedding momentum back to gravity

• similarly, the drop is not optimised, being partly radial rather than purely angular

• final point, here: note also that GPE is not speed-dependent; it'll cost the same to re-lift no matter how fast or slow we do it

So putting those points together; why not crank up the radial translation speeds as a function of rising RPM? Lift the thing sooner in the cycle, let it spend more time per cycle actually falling and gaining angular momentum, and less time rotating it back up... basically increasing the momentum gained, and decreasing the proportion paid back each cycle.

Since the only input work is GPE, which isn't speed-dependent, maybe the system will gain more rotational KE from output GPE than has been paid in radially-lifting it..?

Yes it has to be a dumb question, but can you answer it? I can't.. Seems to me that CoE is being enforced, in the above 'baseline' example, by the diminishing momentum returns with rising RPM. But if momentum returns can be maintained above that default yield, by mitigating the ever-diminishing G-time per cycle with ever-faster radial kung-fu, that supposedly costs the same no matter how fast it gets..

Radial KE losses seem a cert, but net of heat + KE is all that matters.


Bashikly, by radially relifting faster and faster as RPM's increase, more angle and time will be spent per cycle actually being accelerated by gravity, and equally, less time will be spent scrubbing off momentum back to gravity.. but the input GPE should be identical either way, type situation. So does that get us more momentum, and thus, rotKE, than our GPE is otherwise buying in the above baseline? Cos it's the same input GPE per cycle either way, right?

Right?



Cos if the GPE input per cycle is constant, but the momentum yield isn't diminishing as much as it 'should' per rising RPM, then we're getting more momentum than we've strictly paid for, and since this 'momentum' is MoI * RPM, and the former is also constant, then the only form that momentum gain can take is RPM, thus raising the velocity component of the rotational KE value...

..IOW, the only reason output rotational KE = input work in the above sim is because of the thread topic - gravity doesn't increase with RPM. We can fix that, by augmenting the time component, rather than the force component; 1 G is always just 1 G, but your acceleration or deceleration by it is always a function of your exposure time to it..

That's the thesis, anyway.. tests will come when i can get the time, to figure out the code (that hopefully won't break the sim, this time)..

[MrVibrating]

@WaltzCee - are you for real? We could've had hoverbikes and self-cooling beer cans, and i would've been a gracious and benevolent ruler, dispensing my magical free energy equitably and fairly, and with only a very modest harem, all things considered, but now Marchello has snatched that all away like a tasty peanut butter treat from a baby bunny.. those hurt little eyes staring up at you - "why?" Who would even do such a thing? Just, callous. And that's why he stays on my ignore list.

[silent]

Thumbs up for your Mr. V! Isn't it something how you can pour your heart into something and give it your best shot and you can always count on a "reputable" member to come in and shoot you down? I can only imagine what is said, but I must say that anyone who is critical about someone else's work, but yet can't explain how a Bessler wheel works is nothing short of a hypocrite. Instead of encouraging people's efforts, it's this perpetual negativity that can really get a guy down and why ultimately in the end, I made ample use of the block function. The *ONLY* thing that would ever make me listen to them is if they had a Bessler Wheel that was fully functional then I might tolerate a little bit of the ego and arrogance and grab for a piece of moldy bread they tossed me once in a while, while saying, "Yes master - whatever you say master." but thankfully this is not the case. I only get bits a pieces of what certain members are posting through various quotes and comments (which is still way too much), but large amounts of time are saved by me not even having to read the comments of the self-appointed experts.

Moving right along, I've been slowly progressing on my next build. Fortunately during down-time at work my workmates and even my boss are tolerant of my building stuff there and explaining it. My boss has told me, "You know if you figure this out, you need to share it with me since I'm letting you do this here?" I assure him I would and I will if it works.

The principle is simple, but not easy for me to build (but it wouldn't be hard for a carpenter's apprentice to build). I have to admit that if my idea works, I won't be that exuberant because it's simple to the point of being disappointing.

What I've finally settled on (and I could very well be wrong) is that since gravity is everywhere, there is just no magical angles, no magical weight arrangement, and nothing other than just plain raw mechanics cleverly assembled to effect movement. The principle I'm working with involves taking power from the hub of a wheel where torque is at its greatest and using it to move weights on the periphery. Many of the clues from Bessler seem to fit - more than anything I've ever built. I think I've got Bessler's idea of broken columns figured out as well as what he meant by an upper weight by which the constituent parts of the machine receive power and push. I also think the part about weights in acting in pairs as well as weight gravitating to the center and then up again is absolutely correct. The beauty of what I've thought up is that you can increase the torque of the wheel by changing it's size and not even have to change the size of the weights and the constituent parts of the machine will receive even more power and push without having to add more weights to do it! That's what I'm shooting for anyway.

Will what I have under construction work? I have no idea, but it's my best idea yet and until the wheel is solved, how can anyone decry or even approve of what is being built? I only share this because your effort has been a valiant one. You've tried so many iterations and reiterations - the most of anyone I've seen on here. Your open mind is to be applauded - no matter how wrong others think you are, with each failure we know of one more thing that won't work and it narrows it down even further.

I'm fully convinced that Bessler knew how simple his discovery was that he HAD to write books and use tons of diagrams to help hide everything and cloud the issue. Until I have a working wheel though, I'm absolutely no expert and can't criticize anyone's attempt. Funny thing is that if anyone is successful, they won't be applauded. The offended egos will instantly descend upon that one with a furor the likes of which the world has never seen and you'd have to go into hiding.

Anyway, I always enjoying reading your posts mate. I've never thought so long and hard in my life over things I barely understand. I still don't, but at least I understand them a little better than before. There is more to be gained by supporting one another with kindness and tact no matter how wrong we might be, because one day the solution will be found and it will be nice to see how close we were to it or how far we had been.

silent

[ME]

Walter, Even though your example sounds like a far-fetched fantasy, there are never easy and uncomplicated answers.

Maybe the other option is that the people keep helping by buying those certificates and become rich for (basically) taxing the Monarch.
At least the Monarch can finish his castle cheaply until the certificates become meaningless. But now with even more dept (but with the best castle ever) it becomes impossible to reliably run the kingdom. Survival-mode will kick in and soon the whole kingdom goes to pieces. Now it should be the people who need to do the rescuing. Only, who should unite them in their common goal?
It sounds like a dirty business to me.
But hey, Just put that sucker on spin, it all comes out in the wash - Miranda Lambert

Anyway, It's not my goal to recite Newtonian Physics laws but I just want to investigate how Physics could be wrong. And to know how Physics can ever be wrong, one should understand how Physics is right now... as an unbiased reference point. So we can detect when a discovery shifts to Overunity, and say: "huh?".
I think it's the only way to ever detect a loophole without scamming it, become self-deluded, or some blind follower.

Walter. that bar is just where it always was and still is: At unity-level.
Not my fault its way up there - me thinks.

Heads of state, and the Lords of Kingdoms, and the titans of Industry, all the way down to little peons like me want to know how much is this going to cost me?
Depends on how you measure it.

The Flemish ell, the English ell or the French ell? Wholly ell, what the ell?

To resolve these difficulties, the powers-that-be got into the business of measuring things

Everyone can name things whatever they like. You could agree on what that name means, and have a nice uncomplicated summary. Yet when it's only the name that determines an absolute outcome then soon the goal of naming has absolutely nothing to do with that outcome and becomes only an excuse for something else.
Stealthy shifting the reference so that meaning shifts just a tiny bit for gaining an edge is just part of the predator mechanism in the whole animal kingdom.

It's good that we cultural humans have risen above such behavior and we're also lucky that this whole unity- and balance-thing exists as a purely relative phenomena.
Until people started to balance with absolute weights on the market place.
It first happened 'by accident', but sometimes those weights got shaven off to 're balance' the notion of fairness in a more convenient way. So somehow, like magic, sometimes your gold weighed less depending on time and place. That gold becomes an incoherent unstable value. And that's what nobody wants.
Hence the historic need for standardization and regular checks in order to put the balance back where it smack middle belongs. Yet those 'absolute' weights, and what "ells", remain pure arbitrary values.
It is not that standardization actually determines what should balance and whatnot, it only seems that way. They simple provide a means to do it consistently. So now we shouldn't have to worry about the balance itself but only worry about the outcome.
Or to imagine an example: Even when you'd believe that snake oil actually works, it would still be nice if you'd pay a consistent price per flask. Thus standardization of measurement is purely to ensure that you only get hustled once, and not twice.
So how much does it cost? It'll costs you the same as the other sucker paid.

[MrVibrating]

For those without WM, i wanna take a moment to explain how the current sim works, thus elucidating the problem i'm currently trying to solve.

• The wheel has a radius of 2 meters, and is centered at the x/y coordinates (0,0).

• The pink actuators do all of the input work, lifting each pair of weights.

• The rotary solenoids control the distance between each weight in a pair, in order to maintain a constant MoI, but perform no net work;

•• each weight is 1 kg, so with one in the center and one at 2 m radius, the MoI for that pair, per MoI=mr², is 4 kg-m², hence two such pairs have a net 'I' of '8'.

•• The rotary solenoids are 'motors' controlled for 'torque', using this formula:

Code: Select all

-(((body[12].mass * length (12,1)^2) + (body[16].mass * length (16,1)^2) - 4) * 1e10)

This is from the pair that begin in the horizontal orientation; bodies 12 & 16 are the weights, so here we're referencing their mass, and then multiplying it by their changing radius using the 'length' variable to monitor the distance between the center of each weight vs the center of the wheel (body 1), squared.. in other words, the amount of torque the motor is to supply is being controlled by the MoI calculation (mr²) of each weight pair.. at the end of the equation we've subtracted '4' because that's the value of the target MoI we want the system to lock on to. Thus, when the MoI is exactly '4', zero torque is applied; if MoI increases then negative torque is applied, pulling the weight pair closer together; if MoI decreases below 4 then positive torque is applied, pushing the weight pair further apart. Finally, a high multiplier is used (1e10 = 10,000,000,000x) to convert the tiniest variations in MoI into utterly uncompromising corrective torques from the solenoids.

Thus in principle, the linear actuators could slam in and out as frenziedly as needs be, whilst the solenoids maintain a perfectly-locked MoI regardless.

As such, they need no significant changes, for now. All we need to do is trick-up the code driving the linear actuators.

Currently, that's this:

Code: Select all

2 + (point[9].p.x * 0.5)

..again, this is from the initially-horizontal pair.

'Point 9' is the outer end of that actuator, attached to the rim. Here we're referencing its 'x' position - initially 2 m - halving that value; so at the starting conditions this now has a value of '1' - and then adding '2' to it, so an output value of '3', thus the sim begins with that actuator at 3 m extension.

As the system rotates, point 9's 'x' position reduces from '2 m' down to '0' at 12 o' clock TDC, and then goes negative to -2 m then back again, and this cyclic variation is the input for the formula's output being applied to the actuator as a 'length' control.

For a second example, the initially-vertical actuator uses this code:

Code: Select all

2 + (point[40].p.x * 0.5)

..where point 40 is again the outer end of that actuator attached to the rim; it begins at 12 o' clock TDC so an 'x' value of '0', and 0 * ½ = 0, + 2 = 2 meters initial extension.


So! The task now is to modify that actuator control code, to speed up the radial actions! And moreso, the higher the RPM's get..


..some kind of additional multiplier, that will adopt a peak value when a weight pair are mid-way across the wheel (per the initially-vertical pair), and a minimum value when they're approaching fully-OB ('cos simply slamming 'em into the rim would cause unnecessary radial KE losses). Plus it also has to have system RPM as a component, so it scales accordingly..

This is the kind of problem i'd typically try to solve over a weekend, but since i currently don't have any free, anyone's welcome to take a potshot at it.. i'll come up with something before too long, i expect..

..or else, maybe someone can shoot down the 'thesis', such that it is - to restate it: if input GPE (unlike input CF work) is not speed-dependent, then it'll cost the same input energy per cycle regardless of RPM to raise that constant GPE, and furthermore if the momentum yield is a function of the 'up' vs ' down' G-time delta, whilst net G-time per-cycle is an inverse function of RPM, then anything we can do to increase 'positive' G-time, and/or decrease negative G-time, is going to increase the per-cycle momentum yield accordingly. Since naturally-diminishing per-cycle momentum yields are the critical condition CoE depends upon here, if we can gain more momentum per cycle than that constant input GPE 'should've' netted for a given RPM, then by definition we've also bagged more rotational KE, sharing, as it does, the 'velocity' component of that momentum gain, per rotKE=½Iw², type stuff.

Not really any cunning tricks to it, just trying to push right up against the boundaries of what's mechanically possible, hopefully whilst maintaining some degree of precision..

Ideal job for a sim, anyway..