Decoupling Per-Cycle Momemtum Yields From RPM

[MrVibrating]

A key question, again, is whether the riddle - or for that matter the Toys page - is alluding to the general principal of discounting PE via N3 breaks - so, if you had to write a haiku on it as some weird assignment or summink, the sort of punchy-but-to-the-point witticism one might come up with (ie. per AP's style of rhyming couplets) - rather than any pretence at describing an actual embodiment, or else they're precisely that, and the 'quadratic' nature of the riddle is practical rather than just pithy..

Another interesting question would be the potential relevance of the Toys page scissorjack here; tipped by 'one quarter' as it is - could this be a continual GPE output providing the stacking force and/or input energy for the five asymmetric momenta about the axis of 'A' and 'B'..?

Similarly, might the square anvil represent this same 'four-factor' (four strokes per full rotation)..?

And then there's MT 133-134; all seemingly related to the 'quarters' idiom..

[MrVibrating]

Possible variations on the riddle's solution:

• one, single 1 kg mass accelerated to 4.43 m/s has 9.81 J

IE. 'one pound accelerated by one quarter'..

So the riddle could be hinting at some means to 'nullify' the inertia of another three such masses - accelerating all four together, yet for the cost of just one..?


Alternatively:

• 9.81 J GPE / 4 = 2.4525 J

• 2.4525 J accelerates 1 kg from 0 to 2.21 m/s

• four such identical accels take it to 8.85 m/s and 39.23 J KE, for the full 9.81 GPE output.


Still not seeing a solution involving braking / collisions tho..

[Leafy]

MrV

When you talk about N1 or N3, do you mean Newton’s laws? N3 break would be action without reaction? Is there such a configuration where action and reaction not equals?

[agor95]

Hi Leafy

You are correct it means.

1. Thing move in a straight line until pushed in another direction. They can be moving every slowly.

3. Normally a thing pushes against another to cause it to change course.

Therefore reactionless appears to be a thing changing direction without being pushed.
Or a thing doing the pushing not changing direction after the push.

It could be done by being fixed to the pushing thing so you would not know it's direction has changed. This is done by the term FoR [Frame of Reference].

Note The screen you are reading from is not moving to your FoR. However it is traveling around the world each day. If the Earth shrank then both you and the screen would be moving quicker.

You would not see a difference as you are both moving together.

All the Best

[agor95]

Hi M

I am watching the StarShip - yer right which star is this heading for Sol?

i think the Sol colonisation plan's much later - the immediate objective basically just 'falling, with style'..

Looks almost ready... tenterhooks, eh!?

Well we know what it is like to test prototypes. The Musk cargo rocket hit the centre of the pad. This is an achievement in itself.

P.S. Sol is the specific name for our sun/star and the Solar system is colonised on most of the planets if you believe the stories. Your address is Earth-Tera-3 if anything asks.

:)

[MrVibrating]

MrV

When you talk about N1 or N3, do you mean Newton’s laws? N3 break would be action without reaction? Is there such a configuration where action and reaction not equals?

Yes, sorry - i should re-iterate abbreviations more often; i try to keep 'em to a minimum but the three laws of motion (ie. Newton's) really are the axis around which the physics of mechanical over-unity revolve:

• N1) net momentum is invariant over time

So, a more concise reading tailored to our particular circumstances would hold that:

"the net momentum of a closed system of masses interacting freely about a common axis is constant with regards to time"

..a point with which no one could argue - stand on a kiddies carousel down the park and try to change its net momentum without torquing it against the ground or air (if you were desperate); likewise, a Bessler wheel laid on its side ain't going anywhere..

But in that exception of vertical rotation, the system is obviously now thermodynamically open to interaction with an additional field; gravity.. which brings us neatly to the next fundamental axiom:

• N2) 'force' = mass * acceleration

Whenever we encounter the term 'mass' in mechanics (if not physics more generally), what we're invariably really referring to is inertia - this resistance to accelerations is the property substantiating the momentum or energy as a function of speed/time - the 'stopping power' or force in both senses is the acceleration-magnitude of inertia.. and N2 simply formalises this relationship; likewise inverting three ways to derive 'mass' or 'acceleration' from either of the other two variables.

Yet while we instinctively think of gravity as a fundamental force, Galileo famously illustrated with his Leaning Tower experiment that it actually doesn't conform to N2 - likewise a feather and a hammer drop at equal rate on the moon; which in turn would imply that one is being subjected to more force than the other, hence, gravity is obviously not a field of 'force' in that strict sense, and from the ground reference frame at least, is actually a uniform acceleration..

Gravity can also be formulated as a force, of course - but this involves describing it in terms of mutual gravitation between two or more bodies; whereas, in ground-level mechanics, we usually ignore the mutual acceleration of the planet upwards to meet the descending feather and hammer, infinitesimal as it is. But the standard 'law of gravitation' as it applies to, say, cosmology, you'll always see expressed in terms of the interaction between mutually-gravitating bodies. Obviously though that equation usually has little relevance at our scales here at ground level, however we do note that when calculating say GPE, we multiply gravity by mass and height, GPE=GMH, which produces a number equal to the drop's work potential, where 'work' has dimensions of force * displacement.. in other words, we're pulling 'height for 'displacement', but having to multiply the amount of mass by gravity's constant acceleration to derive the effective 'force' component - mass * acceleration = force, and then, force * displacement = work done, or work potential.

The key take-home there being that while gravity itself is an effective N2 violation, we compensate for this by applying N2 within the formulation of a gravitational displacement's work potential - its F*d, instead expressed as (m*g=F)*d. IOW, 'GMH' = 'Fd'.

Abbreviations de-fined, mate.


And so on to N3:

• any change in momentum necessarily incurs an equal corresponding change of opposite sign

This obviously integrates tightly with N1, since it is the condition maintaining time-constancy of a system's net momentum, and the reason that no amount of flailing about on a kid's carousel - or in space - will provide any thrust. Only the external application of force can alter net momentum.

More fundamentally, in terms of simple practicalities, we find that we're intrinsically unable to render unilateral forces - if we want to accelerate a mass, we're consigned to having to apply that force between the mass we want to add momentum to.. and some other, external mass.. such as the ground / planet, or whatever.

So, N3 simply falls out of the fact that forces can only be mutually-applied between masses / inertias, but never unilaterally, as from thin-air.


Note that while the three laws are usually only regarded in terms of their mediation of the time-conservation of momentum, the conservation of energy is simply the re-application of the same laws, only scaling slightly differently - mV, vs ½mV².


So, within the confines of these contexts, one can clearly see the seemingly-striking abilities of swinging / kiiking against gravity; the system momentum changing over time, yet without direct application of torque, or, thus, counter-torque, at the system axis, or, thus, apparent induction of counter-momentum; the Earth is still undergoing reciprocal displacements via mutual gravitation of course, if too minute to amount to significance..

Exactly the same point applies to 'classic OB' - radial lifts with over-balancing drops; the momentum gain is directly proportionate to the reduction in the amount of time the weight was rotated upwards, as opposed to downwards, owing to the portion of that work instead accomplished by direct radial displacement; in short the rotation spent more time being accelerated than decelerated over the full rotation cycle.

So, gaining momentum from gravity and time - in apparent defiance of N1 & N3 - is trivial already - we don't need no stinkin' stator.. or to put it another way, we can render effectively-unilateral torques, and make 'em perform 'useful' work.. if the intention is just to spin something up, anyway..

But again, the only two components of 'momentum' are also those of 'energy', only scaling differently; so the same provisos allowing us to render effective N1 / N3 workarounds also move the goalposts of CoE - specifically, it is crucially the rising displacement WRT time of any mass we're accelerating against, relative to whatever we're accelerating, that is the principal cause - and direct manifestation in fact - of the squaring cost of momentum in symmetry with its resulting KE value; in a nutshell, a 'stator' - pretty much by definition, holds ground in the static FoR.. that is, cementing the PE reference frame into that of the KE..

..but whereas we need the KE to be here in the 'ground' FoR.. if we can manipulate effectively unilateral / 'reactionless' momentum rises then there's no longer any intrinsic need for the PE FoR to remain in the same FoR and more to the point, whereas a +50% : -50% momentum distribution sums to nought, a +60% : -40% distribution sums to a net +20% acceleration of the PE's FoR anyway..

In summary, thus, accumulating effectively-reactionless momenta is an intrinsically over-unity process, directly causing auto-acceleration of the zero-momentum frame.

We can't 'make' energy; only the universe / laws of physics can.

Fortunately however, the laws of physics are my bitch..

..as she was Bessler's before.

Rossi's also probably tappin' it, and we've all heard the rumours about Yildiz and Steorn.. it's not even a secret anymore.. 'fickle', maybe, but anyone who thinks she's chaste ain't using enough imagination.. ;P

[MrVibrating]

Hi Leafy

You are correct it means.

1. Thing move in a straight line until pushed in another direction. They can be moving every slowly.

3. Normally a thing pushes against another to cause it to change course.

Therefore reactionless appears to be a thing changing direction without being pushed.
Or a thing doing the pushing not changing direction after the push.

It could be done by being fixed to the pushing thing so you would not know it's direction has changed. This is done by the term FoR [Frame of Reference].

Note The screen you are reading from is not moving to your FoR. However it is traveling around the world each day. If the Earth shrank then both you and the screen would be moving quicker.

You would not see a difference as you are both moving together.

All the Best

Precisely, thank you.

[agor95]

Hi MrVibrating

if we can manipulate effectively unilateral / 'reactionless' momentum

You lost me in Section 3 Paragraph 10 in your codex.

However what I take from reading 'THE CODEX'.

We can simplify

Energy a thing has is it's measure of ability too potentially do work.

The energy is calculated between one thing to another.

Gravity is acceleration of a frame around the things not a force acting on them.

I am going to a dark room for a while.

Cheers

[MrVibrating]

The thing is, a kiiker accelerating in full loops doesn't require collisions merely to continue gaining angular momentum.. the 'whole system' accelerating together, without needing to drag along a 'pseudo-stator' with which to apply gravitationally-augmented asymmetric inertial interactions against - a concept most toddlers down the park might rightly struggle with. But instead their cerebellums quickly resolve the up/down G*t asymmetry and how their legs' inertial torques (distance from axis) control it..

So, does a Bessler wheel actually need to drag some kind of reaction mass around with it?

The value of collisions in the implicit 'maths of OU' is in breaking PE:KE symmetry - by constantly resetting the relative value of 'stationary' in an otherwise-accelerating FoR, and thus returning to the bottom of the V² multiplier in the energy cost / value of rising momentum; the optimal cost of each 1 m/s or rad/s for 1 kg or kg-m² being half a Joule, but the potential value inflated by the anomalous velocity rise of the input FoR itself relative to the ground / KE FoR.

So a series of asymmetric inertial interactions and consolidating decelerations / collisions is the de-facto game of snakes'n'ladders we're throwing our hats into, if we want KE>PE.. basically, discounting piecemeal momenta, for a linearly-summing PE cost, but squaring KE value.

Whereas, if we only draw momentum from G*t without using a pseudo-stator - just by modulating +/- G-times, per kiiking - then because rotation is absolute - there's either CF force or there isn't - the PE workload of CF force times radial displacement remains intrinsically-bound to its rotational KE changes - it is 'the same' energy, in the same effective FoR; CF force scaling as mass * RPM² * radius..

Thus any means of decoupling PE from KE FoR's without involving a cycle of effectively-asymmetric inertial interactions eludes me.. quite simply as it seems to elude the very mathematics of the laws we have to work with.

The collisions sounding from B's wheels were thus most likely consolidating reactionless momentum rises from gravitationally-skewed asymmetric inertial interactions, breaking PE:KE symmetry by accelerating the relative value of 'stationary' itself, and with it, the physically minimum-possible cost of 'standing start' accelerations.

The Toys page interaction does resolve to 75% dissipation each cycle - only 25% of all input energy actually shifts mass.

Yet the 'quarters' riddle would seem to assert that 100% of a given input energy can be converted to unilateral acceleration..(?)

So, could there yet be some variation on the riddle's solution that does make more accommodating concessions to practicality? Instead of 400%, perhaps 200% plus dissipative losses?

'Worse' being objectively better if only in terms of practical application?

And remember, even if a solution involving collisions seems viable, this still wouldn't account for any work done against the 'stacking force' - it's trivial to render a fully-asymmetric inertial interaction by applying a 9.81 N vertical force between 1 kg masses in free-fall, yet the energy cost of rendering the effective inertial asymmetry from the ground FoR is precisely the resulting GPE output, with no immediate prospect of a net PE:KE disunity..

If all of a given PE (or perhaps specifically, GPE) can be used for unilateral acceleration, as the riddle seemingly implies, then that very efficiency would seem to preclude the very conditions necessary to decouple PE from KE FoR's in the first place.. see my concern?

Whereas if the riddle's just a natty throw-away hint, albeit inexorably-framing a CoM exploit, if not its means of application, then too literal an interpretation perhaps overlooks poetic licence.. the offhand suggestion that the exploit might be leveraged for free, unintentional and not something to get too hung up on..

Still, thus far all attempts on my part have failed to decouple the stacking cost - whether plying gravity, inertial torque, or both at once..

Cyclically resetting the relative value of 'stationary' is no problem - it's easy to make a half-joule of input torque * angle produce a 1 rad/s acceleration with a ten-joule rotational KE value.. the sticking point has consistently been that the 'stacking torque' needed to skew the motor's output distributions of +/- momentum either costs 9.5 J of CF force * radial displacement, or else 9.5 J of output GPE for which the usual KE rise has been forfeited (IE. such as when feilding a weight as a transient 'stator')..

So in context of the riddle's solution seemingly ommitting such losses entirely, the fact that i've as-yet failed miserably in spite of accommodating them - if only thru sheer practical necessity - the possibility of a more-literal interpretation perhaps shouldn't be disregarded, not least in that it actually would be unconditional over-unity.. arguably, the only type that really counts..


Yet what more might 'a great craftsman' factor into such considerations that i've hitherto failed to appreciate? There's evidently something..

The fundamental issue seems to be: we can make the PE FoR auto-accelerate, in apparent defiance of N1 & N3, yet only by gaining velocity relative to the ultimate momentum source / sink - the G vector - thus cutting G-times per cycle and thus the amount of momentum that can be sourced or sunk in the available cycle time, and with it, the degree of effective asymmetry of successive cycles with ever-rising RPM.

Mathematically, if we could only hold G-time constant in spite of rising RPM, over-unity efficiency could be accomplished in just five asymmetric inertial interactions between equal inertias - just as depicted on the Toys page; an elementarily-irreducible causal chain of interactions culminating in mechanical OU. This would effectively fix the unit-energy cost of momentum, invariant of system RPM.

The 'quarters' riddle also fixes the unit-energy cost of momentum, yet apparently, without collisions or 'stacking force' costs.. so:

• are 'four quarters' necessarily sequential in time?

..cuz if not - if they're parallel / simultaneous accelerations - then this would seem to obviate the need for resetting the value of 'stationary' in-between them, obviously thus dispensing with an intrinsic need for collisions, or thus dissipation, or indeed protracting the period of sustaining the stacking force throughout that sequence.. 'gravity' being an effective time-constant rate of change of momentum, remember..

So this tantalising implication persists, that the solution to 'the riddle' might also encapsulate the singular objective of this thread topic..

[MrVibrating]

Hi MrVibrating

if we can manipulate effectively unilateral / 'reactionless' momentum

You lost me in Section 3 Paragraph 10 in you codex.

However what I take from reading 'THE CODEX'.

We can simplify

Energy a thing has is it's measure of ability too potentially do work.

The energy is calculated between one thing to another.

Gravity is acceleration of a frame around the things not a force acting on them.

I am going to a dark room for a while.

Cheers

Dude bookmark this shit or at least print it out as toilet-paper, this is gold mate.. best i've got, anyway..

As ever, i'm really just trying to get my ducks in a row.. dementedly resolved to cracking this evidently-solvable problem once and for all.. no BS, no word-salad.. just the facts, ma'am..

[Robinhood46]

Mr vibrating,
I would very much like to know your thoughts on this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EiRe7_uDhr8
I can't get it to rotate itself with a motor, because it is 200 meters in diameter. The others, that i could, are only 3M because they don't have 17 sections. To work with enough precision with 17 i need to go huge and zoom right in, to place things where they need to be. Algocoo is not ideal, but it is all i have.
16 sections is a totally different kettle of fish with regard the distribution of the weights around the wheel.

[MrVibrating]

..sheriously tho, the above posts explicitly frame all of the relevant mechanics of CoM & CoE, and their implicit terms of contravention. Yes they're long, but dense.. and fundamental.

"Motion's relative, therefore so's speed and energy"

..well, yes, essentially.. but obvs. the devil's in the details.. for which all are welcome to digest if not regurgitate and ruminate upon at leisure.. pretty sure i've got the cow the right way round tho, if not the ducks..

[MrVibrating]

Mr vibrating,
I would very much like to know your thoughts on this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EiRe7_uDhr8
I can't get it to rotate itself with a motor, because it is 200 meters in diameter. The others, that i could, are only 3M because they don't have 17 sections. To work with enough precision with 17 i need to go huge and zoom right in, to place things where they need to be. Algocoo is not ideal, but it is all i have.
16 sections is a totally different kettle of fish with regard the distribution of the weights around the wheel.

Very nice - esp. like the directional catchment; i've played extensively with these kinds of interaction - usually pitting radially-moving mass against angularly-accelerating mass, IE. inertial torques v counter-torques v OB torques.

These are obvs. de facto ingredients of a Bessler wheel..

..i suspect that whatever question you were seeking to resolve from it is probably already better elucidated by the above codex, but would be happy to give feedback on any specifics.. (WM 'gratis' risks pwnage but would also facilitate useful code-sharing, jus sayin') - what i'd be looking at would obvs be the ongoing momentum distributions; effective OB torque being a variable function of system angle relative to G's vector, while 'GPE out' remains a linear function of GMH.

Attempting to consolidate asymmetric momentum distros from a series of inertial interactions biased by a single GPE output has direct relevance to the current considerations here (per the thread title), but i rely on metering the relevant telemetry to really get a handle on what's happening in any interaction.. an 8-bit game-physics engine circa 1987 could probably run a viable Bessler wheel design (if at 1 frame / minute).. it's the real-time telemetry and output F*d data sets that turn an animator into a serious dev tool.. I haven't tried Algocoo so don't know if it can be made to produce numbers on anything, and without which can only really refer back to the codex..

[MrVibrating]

pretty sure i've got the cow the right way round tho, if not the ducks..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=saOOn2G16gE

[Robinhood46]

i've played extensively with these kinds of interaction

but would be happy to give feedback on any specifics.

As i have already said, i do have difficulty following your posts. I left school with a trade (woodmachinist). My level in science leaves a lot to be desired.
When you played with this kind of interaction, bearing in mind we are only talking about "the buyer" in Bessler's words. Were you able to establish through tries or mathematically, which configuration was the most cost effective?
From what i understand, which could be complete nonsense, is that evenly distributed "buyers" are less cost effective than unevenly distributed buyers.

Evenly distributed buyers have a COG (of all the buyers) allways offset from the center axis one side. Basically hovering where the moving weight is. The one doing the buying, whatever it is it buys.

Unevenly distributed buyers have a COG, of all the buyers, that hovers to the left and to the right of the central axis. Yet the movement of the buyer is identical.

Does this not mean that we get the same energy return at a lower energy cost? Or am i missing something?
You don't need to dumb it down for my cat to understand it, but dumbing it down just a little would be helpfull.
Thanks.