Decoupling Per-Cycle Momemtum Yields From RPM

[Fletcher]

Cancelling unwanted torques - you put a second motor on the opposite side turning in the opposite direction.

[MrVibrating]

..i had considered it, but honestly i still don't have the full coherent picture of what the momenta are doing in the first place - i've just run the test and got the expected negative result, but like i said yesterday, i'm struggling to see how this satisfies CoM (tho i'm undoubtedly sure it does)..

Here's the rig:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VEYjekoH ... e=youtu.be

..i spun it up with a Dremel then let the ballast weight (the square piece of lead on the bottom) keel it over into the aligned plane:

• the gyro resists the OB torque, preventing the weight's downwards acceleration; instead it keels at fairly constant speed

• that arrested tilting of the gyro's axis is accompanied by the induction of counter-momentum to the platform

The additional torque applied to the platform by friction / drag on the gyro's bearings was also evident, but after the system had keeled, at which point it began slowly accelerating in the opposite direction (after video's end) - ie. the same direction as the gyro itself.

Conversely, the counter-momentum induced by tilting the gyro's axis 90° was oriented in the opposite direction to the gyro, as you'd expect.

So, the prospective KE gain mechanism is busted, which is fine..

..but just for complete closure, i need to resolve the paradox i tangled meself up in yesterday:

• We induce equal opposing counter-momentum to earth when spinning up the gyro in the horizontal axis

• IOW the gyro is rotating in the vertical plane when first spun up; this applied a 'pitching' moment to earth

• And obviously, both those momenta persist until the gyro stops spinning, right?

• So if instead we rotate one of them into an orthogonal plane, as above, we see that a second counter-momenta is induced to the platform in that new plane..

• As the gyro is winding down in its new orientation, bearing friction is commuting / equalising those two equal opposite momenta (that of the gyro vs that of the platform / net system)

•• So WTF happened to the original counter-momentum induced to earth?

No i'm not claiming its a doomsday machine (but oh just you wait) - just that my current grasp of CoM is evidently somewhat discombobulated..

Hopefully i'll find a bit more clarity on it in the morning..

Take-home for now is that we're back to gravity * time as the only plausible source of momentum.. (i was SO hoping i'd been over-complicating it, but no; that really is the only option. More bloody kiiking, then.. you can buy momentum from a 'rising' vs 'falling' time asymmetry... but nowhere else... and somehow, there's a way of doing that with a 25% per-cycle efficiency accumulator (per the Toys page)..


Unless i can come up with some other kind of inspiration (and even then, most thus far have been complete wastes of time), i'm thinking i should maybe go back to the bottom of the gravity * time ladder and just try to progress methodically; stick with weighted vMoI's and inelastic collisions and trying to somehow get the masses doing what the maffs of OU do, one step at a time..

One potentially useful realisation that's only recently struck me is that, just as rising RPM's eat into positive G-time, they likewise do the same for negative G-time; that is, just as the time available per cycle for gaining or sinking momentum from or to gravity decreases with RPM, so does the amount of time spent shedding momentum back to gravity whilst rising..!

Obviously, if we could somehow find a way of making equal momentum per cycle invariant of RPM, we could thus simply fall back on this inevitable decreasing of negative G-time with rising RPM to cause system efficiency to increase with RPM, instead of decreasing per ½Iw²..

But then how to get constant positive G-time invariant of RPM?

I can only see one possible route to an answer, and it's this:

• instead of relying on the positive G-time of a weight on the descending side of the wheel - which inevitably decreases with RPM - what if instead we could use a weight dropped radially - thru the wheel's center of mass, rather than around it?

If you watch a pair of linked opposing diametric weight levers, they behave in the same way as a centrally-sliding radial weight in response to system rotation - first and foremost you can see that their per-cycle G-time appears to be impervious to RPM!

The system angle they may transition at will vary with RPM, but they're always travelling the same distance downwards when they drop...

..whereas, when falling around the system center of mass - rotating around and down in the tangential axis, per classic OB - the 'downwards' motion of the descending side of the wheel is effectively increasing the distance over which a given unit time of gravitational acceleration is distributed..

Hence, G-time decreases with RPM because the increasing downwards velocity of the descending side of the wheel progressively eats into positive G-time per cycle..

Dropping thru the center, in the radial plane (or likewise for the paired opposing diametric weight levers) would seem to present the possibility of constant per-cycle G-time, and thus, momentum yields, invariant of RPM.

Yet B's wheels nonetheless definitely over-balanced, too.. but i think i've pretty much proven that 'OU' momentum yields cannot be met by OB torque alone; there has to be an additional momentum source, and it can only be from an effective +/- G-time asymmetry.


What this all boils down to then is the implication that a radial drop coupled with an angular lift (the polar opposite phase of 'classic OB') would see constant positive G-time per-cycle, and RPM-dependent negative G-time.. thus, improving per-cycle momentum yields with RPM.


I realised all this some months back; what i haven't been able to make progress on is: how in the hell do you generate system angular momentum from a radial drop? Simple question, but unintuitive to answer.. but the implication is that such a solution must be possible, cuz elsewise we're chasing rainbows..

[MrVibrating]

Just reasoning from basic logic, you're lead to the implication i posited the other day:

• tilting the gyro's axis causes the original spin-up counter-momentum, applied to earth, to both rotate around with the tilting gyro, and also to 'leap' from the earth, into the Styrofoam float / main system axis..!

That seems the only way to maintain zero net momentum at all times..

Not suggesting that's any kind of anomaly, much less in any way useful, yet it seems intriguing, doesn't it? In two respects:

• that titling the gyro simultaneously tips the axis of the already -extant counter-momentum, embodied on the earth

Yes, the counter-rotation of the planet is infinitesimal relative to the gyro, yet it's absolutely fundamental that it's real and non-trivial.

I guess it's no more surprising than the fact that we're bouncing the planet on our feet with every footstep, still, it lays bare my original conceptual error, which was that once imparted to the earth in a given plane, the counter-momentum would remain 'planted' in that plane, oblivious to the later rotation of the gyro's axis; it doesn't, and always remains parallel, and thus, equal and opposite in magnitude and direction, at all times. But also:

• that the counter-momentum 'leaps' from the earth, into the float, apparently defying the attempt to isolate its axis with good bearings

Yes, water actually has high friction and float tests are inferior to good mechanical bearings, but you can see in the test that the float is subject to vigorous and instant torque, directly proportionate to the arrested descent of the weight - the falling weight is effectively 'levering' torque into the system by tilting the spinning gyro, such that the weight cannot descend until sufficient counter-angular-momentum has 'leapt' from the earth's axis, into the float's. It's obviously going to rigidly observe that behaviour even with zero bearing friction.

Obviously, it only seems to be acting like a poltergeist because of the way i'm envisioning it, as a complete 'whole' at all times.. yet that's just my incomplete following of what "conserved" actually means, when followed step-by-step:

- tilting the gyro's axis undoes counter-momentum already applied in that plane, and makes new counter-momentum, in the new plane

So only a slight distinction, but the implications are critical:

- tilting the gyro doesn't merely 'tilt' the axis of the already-extant counter-momentum! Instead, it cancels old CM and lays down new CM in real-time, as its axis rotates!

- thus, likewise, the CM can't 'leap' through zero-friction bearings, since it was never actually rotating with the gyro's axis in the first place!

So that strong torque being applied to the float by the tilting gyro is new CM being laid down, in direct proportion to the old CM being cancelled out by the pitch change!

That seems to be the only way to maintain zero net momentum at all times.

Like i say, not particularly useful, but interesting little Sunday afternoon lesson.. for me, anyway..


So, anyways...


..how do you apply angular momentum to a system, via a radial drop? Could be a centrally-sliding weight, or a pair of opposing linked weight levers - getting a mass to drop equal distance, invariant of RPM, seems rather trivial.. but converting or somehow applying that drop into a net momentum rise is the task at hand.. and G*t seems to be the only available source..

..furthermore, this system has to co-exist alongside a 'classic OB' system; so the system's already subject to perfectly-good OB torque from an OB weight.. but at the same time as this, we have to add further momentum, somehow off the back of a radially-sliding weight, which then undergoes an angular lift..

It's looking more and more like two 'classic OB' systems, one nested inside the other, just in opposite directions, with the 'forwards' one being classic OB, and the 'reversed' one being an asymmetric inertial interaction with gravity causing a constant or improving per-cycle momentum yield with RPM, and thus the KE gains to keep powering the main OB system..

But it depends on solving this thread topic - at the most fundamental level, if mechanical OU / PMM or however you wish to describe it is to once again be 'a thing', then by definition it must pay the lowest-possible energy cost of momentum allowed by ½Iw² in the rotating FoR, and can never recoup more than its KE value given by ½Iw² in the static FoR. The latter requirement is just what happens anyway, so only the former is up for debate, and that's the subject of this thread.. and our whole mission, to be frank..

..You can never have more than 'precisely the right amount' of KE for your given MoI and RPM, since "RPM" refers to 'absolute' speed in the static FoR, whereas, how much PE you paid for it depends upon the relative speed of the internal accelerations producing the net momentum rises, in the internal FoR, which is itself, ultimately, being accelerated by those same momentum rises it's buying.

Hence, "using gravity to buy momentum to accelerate the FoR itself" is the name of the game. "Mech OU" = buying L under conditions of a low relative w² multiplier, and then consolidating and accumulating it in the absolute w² FoR.

Classic OB, in any shape or form, clearly and fundamentally precludes these requisite conditions. Per-cycle momentum yields diminish with RPM, hence a constant input energy / GPE per cycle yields ever-less momentum per cycle the faster RPM's get.

So the entire thread topic culminates in this impasse - a G*t momentum source isolated from RPM can only be a radial drop; either a centrally-sliding mass, or else, a pair of those inter-linked weight levers, thus moving together as one; this offers the possibility of stabilised G*t yields, at least somewhat independent of RPM. Somehow, such a drop has to be used to add momentum to the system, from G*t, possibly consolidated with inelastic collisions..

?

[MrVibrating]

...just realised - for the benefit of anyone following the above thought-train - that this last result simply re-affirms a fundamental point i noted a long time ago:

• we're given to thinking and describing inertial interactions in terms of "momentum transfers"

..and you instantly know what i'm on about; momentum is "distributed / shared / exchanged" between interacting inertias, such that the 'net sum' remains constant.. IOW, we're lead to conceive of the conservation of momentum in much the same way as the conservation of energy - that what we get out is fundamentally the same physical entity, and not merely the same quantity, as that put in.

Elaborating, that for instance the 1 J of 1 V * 1 A/s thru a resistor is 'the same' 1 J of heat produced. That 1 J of GKE is 'the same' 1 J of GPE we input.. that this "joule" only ever exists as a unitary whole at all times, by definition, endowing it with a kind of corporeal reality that we simply take for granted.

But just as, in distinction, the Joule you get out is not 'the same' Joule you put in, but merely the same quanity under conditional terms, so it is for the CoM, which is never truly "transferred", but rather induced, from the vacuum, on demand; it is only the usual symmetry of N3 that causes the illusion of a conserved unitary entity that is passed between bodies.

This is ultimately why we cannot simply 'transfer' a given momenta into a smaller inertia and scoop the resulting KE gains - rather, we're using the smaller inertia to decelerate the larger one, inducing fresh momentum from the vacuum into the smaller inertia, and from the larger one back into the vacuum!


And so, as you can see, this obscure but crucial distinction is also the same conceptual pitfall that lead me to think i might simply drum up some momentum in one plane and just 'transfer it', in my bucket-scoop of a gyro, into another plane and dump it there, as if it were a corporeal substance, rather than an instantaneous vacuum interaction.


It's also the critical distinction that opens the door to 'free energy', since gravity is an ambient constant rate of exchange of momentum between inertia and the vacuum.

It means that momentum sourced from a I/O G*t asymmetry is new momentum being introduced to the universe.

Extra extra virgin.

It means that the 'first law' of mechanics is actually an open goal..

..with sliding goalposts..

..and we have the controller in our hands, able to dial G*t up or down on either side of an interaction, input or output..

This means Bessler's wheel has cosmological significance - since the net momentum of the universe is supposed to be a time-constant 'nil'.

Very fundamental postulate, this.

If it were ever actually a true condition of the universe, it certainly ceased being so 1712, and all of the momentum B. added to the universe is still right here under our feet..




Momentum is always induced, never "transferred".. with the corollary being that it is likewise transduced from the decelerated inertia back into the vacuum in time-symmetrical proportion to the quantity induced to the accelerated inertia; and this remains equally applicable to rotations of a momenta's axis - ie. essentially an inertial interaction with its own body, encompassing acceleration in one plane with deceleration in another - as to regular angular or linear interactions between inertias.

Bessler's wheel is a free-energy doomsday machine, buying momentum from the vacuum (gravity * time) for the energy cost of low relative accelerations in the rotating FoR, and benefit of higher absolute velocities in the static (ground) FoR.

Even if it were possible to sink an equal opposing quantity of momentum back into G*t for zero net change whilst still making a KE gain (which it mathematically is not), you'd still be constantly changing the planet's spin axis; so, never actually accelerating the planet in any particular axis, but rather causing a constant change in axial tilt / polar drift. So, even then, still an ELE.

In reality tho, the only solution that pans out means that the KE gain is directly proportional to the quantity of newly-introduced momentum from G*t. This momentum is then duly sunk to earth by harvesting the KE gains; the only way to prevent this would be to only run a wheel in a total vacuum using superconducting magnetic bearings, with a self-governing RPM limiter to prevent runaway failure, and only braking it back to a halt by keeping its axis in position while reversing the G*t asymmetry.. so, no free energy, but no ELE either and we still get to see a novel quantum-mechanical interaction in operation..

Bessler's 1717 Christmas demo at Weissenstein introduced a shed-load of new momentum to earth, from G*t, and the sloshy parts did what they are want to do, causing at the very least the 1717 Christmas tsunami, if not the super-volcanic eruption on the Alpine faultline 180° opposite in Nz.. That was just one wheel, running for 5 weeks.. All of that new momentum must still be here..

G*t > CoM.

Turns out the latter's just incidental to the usual time-symmetry of the former..

..and thus, likewise for CoE!

Only a 'Wandering Earth' or 'Battlestar Galactica' type society - essentially committed to spatiotemporal nomadicy, imprisoned in the self-isolating FoR they're dependent upon - can use Bessler's tech as a basis of their energy economy.

It definitely IS possible.

It definitely ISN'T a free-energy panacea we wanna run into blindsided..


:|

[MrVibrating]

Assuming scale-invariance of the gravitational equation, interacting and bound massive subatomic particles are mutually gravitating, and thus their momentum constancy - and corresponding energy - is also contingent upon the time-symmetry of their inbound vs outbound GPE interactions at the quantum scale.

While their masses and thus corresponding gravitational forces - as well as G-times as a function of their high speeds - are fleeting, given the speeds involved, the energy changes may be non-trivial..

Yes, i am absolutely pointing out the obvious implication that asymmetrically phased perturbations such as by precisely-applied EM forces could, in principle, cause matter to accumulate or shed momentum and thus energy from or to the vacuum via asymmetric G*t interactions between subatomic masses - gaining more heat (the 'KE FoR') than the work done against EM force in the FoR of the plasma's interacting charges..

Thus a small, constant cyclic EM workload with an asymmetric waveform could perform the same amount of relative work each cycle - for the same photon energy absorbed - thus evolving linearly WRT time, but for a heat value that squares with absolute particle velocity WRT time...


Could 'LENR' / EVO phenomenon be micro-scale time-asymmetric gravitational interactions, gaining momentum and ultimately heat by modulating mechanical speeds via EM interactions relative to the particles' mutual gravitational constant?

G*t / momentum symmetry at the micro-scale must be every bit as fundamental as at the macro-scale, after all..

Notwithstanding that i'm completely unqualified to even think such thoughts, let alone answer 'em..

[MrVibrating]

Q: Does kiiking at unity efficiency (since that's all we have for now) actually break CoM?



A: Evidently not.


We're still left guessing how OU quantities of momentum might pan out - is it possible, just in principle, to maintain OU-threshold momentum yields without changing Earth's resting momentum state?

Open question for now...



Sim details:

• planetary gravity (planet and weight are mutually attracting)

• weight & vMoI masses selectable within preset range

• startup motor available for when the above ratios preclude passive start

If startup speed set to '0', each cycle begins and ends at that same 9 o' clock angle; otherwise a motor will lift the weight up to 12 0' clock TDC and disengage, thereafter coasting whilst the actuators pump the MoI, and then continuing to use TDC to mark each full cycle.

• selectable 'rising' vs 'falling' time symmetry (rotates vMoI phasing 90° relative to gravity)

• selectable no. of turns within preset range

• option to lock wheel upon reaching target no. of turns, or continue coasting

• tracks both linear and angular momenta

• sim originally disabled gravity entirely and used a linear actuator to apply an actual constant 1 G acceleration between earth and wheel, with same results (net momentum conserved)




Still no success in converting radial GPE's into angular momentum gains, let alone RPM-invariant ones.. will update if and when that changes..

[MrVibrating]

OK so gravity, mass and height are constant hence discount GPE isn't possible - it's going to cost the same energy to keep re-lifting a weight (at best!) as RPM's rise, yet the momentum each drop generates is always going to diminish by the inverse square of RPM, thus tracking unity.

If you didn't spot it, this proves BTW the futility of any prospective solution that would depend on passive over-balance (ie. move a weight into an OB position such that the wheel rotates to lower it); no matter how ingenious your lifting solution, the amount of gravity * time - and thus, momentum increase - each weight can possibly wring from gravity is going to keep dropping each cycle, the faster it spins, perfectly tracking ½mV² / unity.

Yet B.'s wheels did employ passive OB. We know that unequivocally.

A paradox?

No - recall Wolffe's impression that the weights heard landing on the descending side seemed to be acquiring or at least imparting more momentum than could be accounted for by their fall..

So there it is - the extra momentum needed to reach OU efficiency thresholds is somehow to be added to the weights either en route to their collisions, or else somehow, during their actual impacts.

Yet where could any additional momentum have been sourced in a statorless system?

Again, the only possible answer is G*t - so there needs to be a second, additional GPE output from which to source that momentum, which can only be either nested physically inside (ie. such as the proposed radial drop principle), or else, perhaps (just logically if not a physical possibility) separated in time (ie. suppose the top-up momentum comes from a previous cycle, or else from a delayed / slowed internal FoR, hence with a lower CF-PE cost or summink). It's basically a reference frame problem - we somehow need to move momentum between velocity FoR's without having to physically accelerate it, which would necessarily incur N3 and a rising V² multiplier. Which in turn implies changing the MoI component (ie. if not the velocity component) of the momentum being transferred between FoRs.

Identifying the possibilities here is shooting fish in a barrel - OU is only physically a thing if we can pay constant input GPE for a constant momentum yield, in spite of rising RPM.

Can we speculate how that might affect the outcome of the above sim?

IE. if the weight / wheel is gaining more momentum than would be possible from a passive fall over the same height from the same initial speed, and yet that additional momentum must nonetheless also be sourced from gravity, then there must be an effective up vs down or CW vs ACW CoM break between the earth and wheel, via gravity, no?

Dunno. Need to work out how to actually implement it before measuring it..

[Fletcher]

OK so gravity, mass and height are constant hence discount GPE isn't possible - it's going to cost the same energy to keep re-lifting a weight (at best!) as RPM's rise, yet the momentum each drop generates is always going to diminish by the inverse square of RPM, thus tracking unity.

If you didn't spot it, this proves BTW the futility of any prospective solution that would depend on passive over-balance (ie. move a weight into an OB position such that the wheel rotates to lower it); no matter how ingenious your lifting solution, the amount of gravity * time - and thus, momentum increase - each weight can possibly wring from gravity is going to keep dropping each cycle, the faster it spins, perfectly tracking ½mV² / unity.

Yet B.'s wheels did employ passive OB. We know that unequivocally.

A paradox? ...

IMO, unless the wheel is permanently OOB i.e. not passively OOB but actively OOB.

Of course it requires some stunning, hitherto unknown, seemingly ingenious mechanical arrangement (just think it and say it quickly). Moving on - a special lifting solution therefore becomes a redundant concept because the weights follow a closed orbital path and the wheel has asymmetric torque.

Normal service will resume in a minute ;7)

[Georg Künstler]

So there it is - the extra momentum needed to reach OU efficiency thresholds is somehow to be added to the weights either en route to their collisions, or else somehow, during their actual impacts.

There is an impact on the downgoing side, but different as you think.
You are thinking in one single weight which will impact,
but in fact a sum of weights are impacting.

The internal construction which have maybe 8 weights are connected together,
And only one corner is impacting.

All weights can act as its own, are under stress from gravity.
With springs, the springs can be compressed on one side and released on the other.
This is only possible with a loose CoM.
It is a delay of a normal fall, repelling.
So when you use your formula G*t you have an extended, different t.

[MrVibrating]

OK so gravity, mass and height are constant hence discount GPE isn't possible - it's going to cost the same energy to keep re-lifting a weight (at best!) as RPM's rise, yet the momentum each drop generates is always going to diminish by the inverse square of RPM, thus tracking unity.

If you didn't spot it, this proves BTW the futility of any prospective solution that would depend on passive over-balance (ie. move a weight into an OB position such that the wheel rotates to lower it); no matter how ingenious your lifting solution, the amount of gravity * time - and thus, momentum increase - each weight can possibly wring from gravity is going to keep dropping each cycle, the faster it spins, perfectly tracking ½mV² / unity.

Yet B.'s wheels did employ passive OB. We know that unequivocally.

A paradox? ...

IMO, unless the wheel is permanently OOB i.e. not passively OOB but actively OOB.

Of course it requires some stunning, hitherto unknown, seemingly ingenious mechanical arrangement (just think it and say it quickly). Moving on - a special lifting solution therefore becomes a redundant concept because the weights follow a closed orbital path and the wheel has asymmetric torque.

Normal service will resume in a minute ;7)

Obviously weights need to be actively relifted in order to keep overbalancing; by 'passive OB' i mean that the weight drops under its own steam only - so the only torque / momentum being applied is that of the weights seeking a lower GPE; so sure they're actively lifted first, but then in falling, they're only able to impart momentum equal to their drop time (as a function of current RPM) in relation to gravity's constant acceleration.. ie. the factor that causes GPE output efficiency (in terms of per-cycle momentum yields) to track ½Iw² / unity.

IOW some additional momentum must be introduced, over and above that gained from over-balancing torque.


Obviously, if OTOH a GPE asymmetry were possible (not that it is), then you could lift a weight when it's light and drop it when it's heavy and never have to worry about anything so droll as p-c momentum yields as a function of RPM..

..but because we can't, we're left no other options..

[MrVibrating]

So there it is - the extra momentum needed to reach OU efficiency thresholds is somehow to be added to the weights either en route to their collisions, or else somehow, during their actual impacts.

There is an impact on the downgoing side, but different as you think.
You are thinking in one single weight which will impact,
but in fact a sum of weights are impacting.

The internal construction which have maybe 8 weights are connected together,
And only one corner is impacting.

All weights can act as its own, are under stress from gravity.
With springs, the springs can be compressed on one side and released on the other.
This is only possible with a loose CoM.
It is a delay of a normal fall, repelling.
So when you use your formula G*t you have an extended, different t.

If you can run the last sim it perfectly explains G*t - switch to 'symmetric' +/- G*t yields and the inertial torques from the MoI changes are synced to cause equal acceleration and deceleration phases as the weight's both rising and falling, hence its exposure time to gravity's constant acceleration is the same during both rising and falling phases of the cycle, and the rotor just becomes a pendulum, unable to gain momentum over a cycle.

Switch back to asymmetric sync and the inertial torques (the ice-skater effect) now cause the weight to spend more time falling, and less time rising; the height is constant, gravity's acceleration is constant, but the rising and falling periods are now unequal, and because the rising period is shorter, less momentum is shed back to gravity when rising, than is gained when falling over that longer period, resulting in a gain in angular momentum on the wheel.

Bessler's wheels turned with their axles - and he stressed "everything must go around together" (ie. statorless operation) as a necessary condition - consistent (exclusively i might add) with the gain principle being an effective N3 / N1 violation, ie. spoofing the V² multiplier for a PE discount, AKA mechanical OU.

So an 'up' vs 'down' gravity * time delta is the only possible momentum source avaliable, to Bessler, or us. This isn't a hypothesis, it's shooting fish in a barrel, sure as the sky is blue.

Likewise, just supposing a GPE asymmetry were possible (even though it isn't remotely); so you'd underbalance one side, overbalance the other.. but what's actually gravitating is the system center of mass, moreso than the weights themselves - it's the center of mass, or center of gravity, that is causing the overbalancing torque, as the (magically) non-cancelling sum of 'up' vs 'down' torque * angle workloads, and what you're essentially doing is causing that center of gravity to spend more time on the descending side than the ascending side each cycle..

IOW, no matter how you might envision going about it, the only way to change the momentum state of an otherwise closed system of interacting masses is by engineering and exploiting an effective 'up' vs 'down' G*t delta, to which any gain in momentum will be proportionate as a function of the time difference in relation to gravity's constant acceleration.


Impacts could be functional or incidental - if the latter then there's little more to say, if the former then the EMGAT principle - not to mention the maths of OU - by definition depend upon inelastic collisions, both for the practical purposes of keeping everything together at the same relative velocity over accelerating RPM, as well as redistributing any unilateral momenta on one mass back to the rest of the system / wheel.

[MrVibrating]

OK different tack:

• What if we must accept diminishing p-c momentum yields as RPM's rise?

So we must also accept passive OB (ie. the per-cycle momentum gain is purely a function of the weight's drop time relative to G., with no additional top-ups).

IOW, how could we engineer a momentum gain from standard yields per gravity and RPM?


The only remaining route to a solution would then be this:

• suppose that whatever the p-c momentum yield as a function of the current RPM, it's simply distributed asymmetrically internally, with the ratio of that asymmetry being fixed, regardless of the actual amount of momentum it's working with..

So at double the RPM we'll still be yielding half as much momentum per cycle, but whatever the amount, it gets split say 50:50 between internal clockwise vs counter-clockwise accelerations?

Maybe those paired opposing diametric lever weights - basically the pendulums from the Meresburg prints - could be used here? They could be interconnected via a central crank, turning a fixed MoI wheel (basically just a disc / flywheel) - if the pendulums have the same MoI too, then as each pair drop you'll get a clockwise torque from one and counter-clockwise from the other, with their corresponding counter-torques cancelling of course, but also that third pair of torques from the balanced wheel too.. so, maybe the counter-momentum from that could be accumulated over successive cycles?

Need to knock up a sim of this..

[MrVibrating]

OK here's a quick detail on the above points for anyone without WM:

First off, here's symmetrical up vs down periods:



As you can see, since gravity's acceleration is constant, and the mass and height are constant, and the upswing and downswing periods are also unchanging, it's just a pendulum, shedding as much momentum back to gravity on the way up, as was gained from it on the way down. No net gain in momentum per cycle is possible here; N1 has the last word.


Next, the vMoI sync is rotated 90° relative to the GPE interaction:



So here you can see that the inertial torques are slowing down the descent - prolonging its exposure time to gravity's constant acceleration - and then in turn, speeding up the ascent, thus reducing the weight's exposure time to gravity's constant deceleration..

..with a per-cycle momentum gain proportionate to the 'up' vs ' down' time difference, and thus momentum-in vs momentum-out (from and to gravity!) each cycle; conclusion: N1 doesn't apply to time-variant gravitating systems.


This is utterly trivial, on the one hand - it's how we gain height on a swing, the basic mechanics of kiiking..

..yet its implications on a broader scale seem striking; for one thing, we tend to think of the conservation of momentum as being a spatial constraint - that is, if we consider the 'zero momentum frame' between two interacting bodies, it remains perfectly stationary with respect to their motions and our FoR, so comes across as literally a spatial position, as if pinned to coordinate space.. you follow?

Yet what the above result lays bare is that CoM is a temporal constraint, not a spatial one!

IOW, where ever there is gravity, momentum is only conserved in time, not space - and the appearance to the contrary is actually an epiphenomenon; an almost incidental consequence of the fact that inbound and outbound legs of all other naturally-occurring gravitational interactions we encounter are usually time-symmetric.. due to gravity's constancy of course.

It is the ability to artificially manipulate input vs output exposure times to gravity's constancy that enables the wheel above to gain angular momentum from it, without needing a stator, or thus to apply counter-momentum to earth, in apparent defiance of N1..

And this is a real crunch point on the road to OU and solving B's riddle - how to gain momentum in a statorless wheel in the first place, quite aside from how to do so at OU efficiencies..


TL;DR - without exploiting an effective 'up' vs 'down' gravity * time asymmetry, a prospective wheel can't even begin autoaccelerating, let alone breaking PE / KE symmetry..

[MrVibrating]

Just in addendum to the above points - don't wanna get too sidetracked since i'm currently looking in another direction - but consider that a spaceship has mass, and, thus, its own intrinsic gravity field; it could thus perform onboard time-asymmetric inertial interactions with its own gravity field, essentially having a working 'inertial motor' - and essentially be warp-capable since it's not relying on propellant..

This is why the above test was so compelling, despite only being able to do it at unity efficiency for now.. even if a spacecraft couldn't break PE / KE symmetry, freed from the need for reaction matter it could be that much lighter, faster and leaner, needing only an energy supply..

As ever, a working Bessler wheel also has to pass that same test, of not earthing stray momenta, before it's a sustainable energy solution, but it still seems unlikely - both from first principles, as well as the historical coincidence of the Weissenstein demo and 1717 Christmas tsunami - that PE / KE symmetry can be broken without causing an N1 / N3 violation wrt Earth's resting momentum state, in which case the 'minor engineering issue' won't be how to develop Bessler's wheel into an effective Acubierre drive, but simply how to separate the two effects in the first place..

[silent]

Out of everything you have posted, this is yet the most profound and simple.

Thanks for all your hard core research. It's enlightening to follow you down this road and I appreciate your efforts. This is really good stuff.

silent