MrVibrating wrote:Fletcher wrote:Hi Mr V .. I thought I might as well weigh in somewhat, on the back of ME's and sleepy's comments. Not meant to derail or discourage you but perhaps widen all our perspectives in our search. IMO exploitation of MOI for momentum and energy gain as you are attempting to demonstrate seems a plausible possibility if we have the right mechanics.
I just want to lay out some thoughts then ask some questions that we should all think about.
FWIW B. said that his PM secret was very simple, but deeply hidden. So simple in fact that he was concerned a buyer could ask for his money back.
Now I'm going to apply Ockhma's Razor and suggest that B's wheel internal mechanics looked like almost any OOB system, with a Prime Mover system and a secondary OOB system that were connected (or coupled if you prefer). MT seems to suggest that many designs could be made to work.
But we almost all believe that gravity is a conservative force and in a closed wheel environment that gravity can not be a source of energy vis a vis a Gravity Only wheel is extremely unlikely both then and now.
But most OOB designs involve shifting weights or lever weights (lws) for example. They periodically change radius as they swing in and out etc.
Whilst standard physics says that in a closed system there will not be asymmetric torque from OOB systems, we also inherently know that these swinging lever-weights etc change system MOI so that system MOI is in a state of flux thru rotation.
So my question to you (and us) is what does greater or lesser wheel MOI really mean ?
It's my understanding that a greater MOI rotating structure takes more energy input to achieve a certain speed in a standard time interval (rpm). A lesser MOI rotating structure can be accelerated for less energy input to the same rpm.
So once again applying Ockham's Razor, it seems plausible to me that B's wheels simply looked like OOB systems but actually exploited a change in MOI from transitioning lws etc. And this was potentially the deep dive secret he was protecting and took him so long to find and harness mechanically.
My conclusion being that any MOI exploit fell out of his hunt for an OOB wheel, and hence why there is 99% common DNA to an ordinary OOB system. And why he suddenly realized why all the other attempts had failed; because he had discovered the deeply buried secret to accumulating momentum thru fluxing of system MOI that had energy advantages rather than asymmetric torque advantages.
JMO's. Something to think about as we look for our own deep dive PM secret that is extremely simple.
You're quite possibly right, it's something i'm often thinking about - did he really delineate the two
vis viva's and work out the dependence of CoE upon CoM from first principles.. or was it just a 'happy accident' he was smart enough to follow up on?
I think he's given sufficient indication's he's aware of the importance of counter-momentum, and that it's possible he was thinking in terms of trapping and entraining the
vis viva - motion itself - for some years
after "learning the hard way" about the futility of chasing a GPE exploit. He mentions being unimpressed with others' thoughts on the issue - as would anyone who has progressed beyond OOB designs listening to more of the same - and given the latest findings that the design has to be optimised to minimise orbital inertia before the banked momentum has sufficient KE to exceed input energy, the first tentative runner he describes seems unlikely to have been an OOB design-gone-wrong, and really could only have been inspired along similar lines as here - the search for a way to reduce the CF costs of generating momentum from gravity. It's a very particular design criteria that would serve no obvious advantage in an OOB scheme..
Arguably, with regards to weight levers, an "MoI" has to be in some way confined to the axis in question - if it's just floating or swinging around then it's
own axis of rotation is the only MoI that really matters, since its orbital MoI isn't really a function of the net orbital momentum or RKE - and
that's what validates a given measure of MoI - it's the base field for mV and ½mV².. so if an acceleration of the net system
isn't likewise accelerating some internal mass in the same plane because it's swinging or rotating or changing radius on a pivoting axis, then it's not really meaningfully part of it's MoI, nor thus a function of the instantaneous net system AM or RKE.
We know CoM and CoAM. We know he (correctly) stated that mechanical OU depends upon statorless operation. We know that driving a load with an OU wheel necessarily involves offloading some momentum with that donated KE, so more momentum must be sourced. We know his wheels were vertical, and we now know that momentum
can be sourced from gravity without using a stator. We know he used internal masses changing radius, and attributed the causative principle to them and these transitions. We know these transitions produce reactionless 'inertial torque' . We know they cannot cumulatively add KE or momentum over successive cycles. But we know that the accelerations and decelerations they cause produce the opportunity to grab momentum from gravity.
We know that accumulating reactionless angular momentum is an inherently non-conservative process. We know that inelastic collisions can consolidate momentum gains. We know that axial CF is independent of orbital CF. It seems to me, he could've figured out most of this stuff the same way we have.. like he said, if it's
there, then it's just a matter of searching diligently enough. Methodically, and persistently enough. As ever, the implicit instructions for generating 'free' energy are written between the lines of its terms of conservation -
don't do the things you
need to do to conserve energy, and you won't.. and that's where the methodology, and thus inevitability, comes in.
You've got mass - inertia, angular and linear - force, accel, vel, plus 'what goes up must come down' - there's not really that many permutations is there?
Compared to the dozen or so different inter-reacting effects and properties that make EM interactions so non-linear, mechanics presents a much narrower range of interactions to try out..
..and what you quickly find is that both inertial interactions, and gravitational ones, are pretty firmly conservative within their own terms. Hence the only remaining option is
combining them - investigating
their inter-reactions..
And with angular inertias, you can't
not end up playing with MoI variations and their effects..
Dunno, all text-walled out. TL;DR, i think he'd've had to get here by the same route we did.
