Decoupling Per-Cycle Momemtum Yields From RPM

[MrVibrating]

..and.. another one bites the dust:





Again, same thing's obviously gonna happen if they both rise together (ie. fook-all).

So that's another permutation eliminated.. and with it, paired interactions per se, i think..


So, if these levers are supposed to produce momentum gain from gravity, then they obviously must be operated separately...

[MrVibrating]

..again.. nothing doing!

So what's the problem here? N3, obviously - we're applying equal torque and counter-torque, so that eliminates all variations on moving the levers via 'active' means; ie. all variation on applying force / torque between the wheel body and lever/s..

So next up, passive falls under gravity, i guess..

For this, i'll pre-set the levers in a 'cocked' position, allowing them to fall, and then locking their axes when they've rotated 0.1 rads..

[MrVibrating]

..once again, absolute doodley-squat!

So was all this fussing over their MoI ratios for nought then?

Could their intended purpose be simply as GPE's instead? So maybe they're supposed to raise the radial GPE via the scissorjacks? But i've already tried that - obviously no GPE asymmetry is possible, so their only purpose - the only thing they could be good for - surely has to do with gaining momentum from gravity, somehow?

Anyone have any suggestions at this stage? I'm done for tonight, but can run these off pretty quickly, so if anyone has any ideas i can knock some more tests out tomoz..

[MrVibrating]

..was kinda hoping these could emulate the results of the 'chicken run' mock-up, albeit with smaller per-cycle displacements / momentum yields... but so far there's simply no momentum gain at all..

..maybe the tests should begin with the wheel already rotating?

Using 'em as 'pseudo-stators' to torque the wheel against whilst sinking counter-torque to gravity would seem to require that they rotate out past the rim - much more angle of rotation required, yet we have at most a few inches up and down to play with..

Maybe their interaction with the radial GPE is necessary - as noted, the radial GPE will also be applying inertial torques as it drops down and crosses the center, then back out on the bottom side; so a positive reactionless torque followed by a negative one.. how might that help?

[MrVibrating]

..poss. solution: rig up the full MT40-ish mech, including the radial GPE..?

Rationale: As previously noted, the GPE appears optimised for generating maximal inertial torque for the given GPE / weight; that inertial torque could, conceivably, cancel the counter-torque from accelerating a single diametric lever..

'Diametric lever' = "crossbar"..?


Likewise tho, the counter-torque will be cancelling the inertial torque, hence success will depend upon the lever gaining more momentum than the wheel itself loses... which seems a long shot, but can't think of anything else to try..

[Georg Künstler]

MrVibrating wrote:

'Diametric lever' = "crossbar"..?

yes, see x-cross from the barn.

[MrVibrating]

OK so here's that last doodle, back from page 10:



..obviously it's all rigged up incorrectly there.. the interaction i want to try next will involve that radial GPE, operating just one lever at a time.

The lever-vs-wheel MoI's will again be matched; so this time the wheel MoI will include the mass of that GPE.

The GPE itself, as mentioned already, appears optimised for generating the maximum inertial torque for its given weight; this is why it's composed of two masses connected by vertical rods, rather than just a single unitary lump of mass sliding up and down - which would have the same weight, but a narrower distribution about the axis.

As that GPE moves downwards / inwards towards the center, it is producing positive inertial torque; attempting to speed up the wheel, per the 'ice-skater effect'; angular momentum is conserved, and is composed of angular inertia (MoI) times angular velocity (RPM), hence reducing one component causes an immediate compensatory rise in the other, and vice versa.


As the above brief demonstrations confirm, it is impossible to apply torque to these diametric weight levers without applying equal opposite counter-torque back to the wheel axis itself; N3 is inviolable (due to mass constancy and the speed of light), so it makes no difference if the levers are operated by applying torque directly at their pivots, or else by yanking 'em up and down by means of the radial GPE; either way, we're going to be inducing counter-torques, and thus, counter-momenta, which will always be equal and opposite to any momentum imparted to the lever/s. In short, 'N1' = 'it's impossible to change the net momentum of a closed system of interacting masses via the internal expenditure of work'...

But we're going to be trying to make an open thermodynamic system; open to gravity, and time..

I've already shown various systems that apply carefully-controlled inertial torques to fully cancel counter-torques, using 'reactive feedback' techniques.

The added complication here is going to be the same mass causing these inertial torques, is also a gravitating 'weight', providing output GPE to operate the lever and so apply torque and, thus, its corresponding counter-torque. Basically, the same mass movement is causing at least two different kinds of torques at the same time.. or three if including over-balancing / under-balancing torques..

Now, if there's a 'magic balance' between those torques that gains momentum from gravity, it could be tricky to find it with a trial-and-error approach.. too many permutations to sift through!

..so what i'm thinking is, why not just continue applying torques directly to the lever axes as before, so, doing without any initial mechanical coupling between the GPE and lever; just torque the lever directly, and then, at the same time, move the GPE downwards in a controlled manner. This should make it easier to work through the possible 'permutation space'..

The first thing to try would seem the most simple - slide the GPE radially from its maximum-MoI (extended) position, down into the center, where its MoI is minimal. Tune the amount of mass / weight to provide sufficient inertial torque to fully cancel all 'motor torque' being applied to the lever axis.

Under these conditions it should then be straightforward to meter the transient rise in the lever's momentum (its MoI times its velocity), along with the wheel / net system's drop in momentum, caused by its inability to speed up in response to its decreasing MoI (which is being prevented by the counter-torques from the lever axis).

The first priority being to check that the momenta are equal and opposite.

Is there any real chance they might not be? It'd be quite the discovery were it so; we'd thus have a transient net momentum change, at least..

Perhaps this is another area where the high MoI of the diametric levers will have an effect - since its momentum is its angular velocity times its MoI about its pivot; if we can cause the lever to gain more momentum than the wheel loses to its reduced MoI but with the corresponding acceleration cancelled, bingo! The subsequent braking / collision of the lever will share back that momentum gain to the wheel axis. Then all we need to do is keep repeating that momentum gain, whilst measuring the energy in vs out..

Obviously however, a negative inertial torque has to be caused at some point in the cycle, as the GPE needs to be reset; either it continues down past its 'minimum MoI' location at mid-center, dropping out at the bottom side, back into a 'max-MoI' position, or else it reverses back out, following the same path by which it moved in..

..so, how is the sequence of positive and negative inertial torques supposed to be phased relative to the torques being applied directly to the lever?

For instance, does the negative inertial torque have to be accomplished whilst the lever is still falling, or else, after it's braked / hit its rimstop?

If the latter case, then this would make sense, since we'd already have our momentum gain, and merely changing radius from thereon will only transiently lower the wheel speed, with no effect on the conserved angular momentum..

Bit long-winded i know, but i'm just working this out as i go along, nothing much 'predicted' at this stage, it's still all rather speculative / investigatory..

Far as i can see, it all comes down to whether or not the transient drop in net system momentum about the wheel axis - caused by the paired 'GPE' masses moving into the center whilst counter-torque from the lever axis prevents its acceleration - is equal to the rise in momentum of the diametric lever, caused by the counter-torque at its axis being cancelled by the above inertial torque..

This seems to be about the most self-consistent permutation to begin with..

[WaltzCee]

No wheel - NO expert.

Brings to mind the Orwellian expressions from Animal Farm:

all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.

And

Four legs good, two legs bad.

I see WaltzCee is still at it. It seems like whenever we are cruising along enjoying reading posts and then suddenly things take a turn for the worse

Is a bit disingenuous in light of this:

On a lighter note though, Mr.V I appreciate your approach to this problem using your math and intricate knowledge of the forces involved. I absolutely don't understand the math behind the physics and the physics behind the math. As I'm getting older, I have to pick and choose what I want to invest time in and at this stage of my life, trying to learn the maths involved is literally teaching an old dog new tricks. It ain't gonna happen and even when I was a younger man, it wouldn't have happened then either.

How can you be enjoying something you don't even understand? Maybe you failed to follow
the directions of putting the Double D on your head. Silly booby head.

And a blanket accusation of sophistry is specious, a lame attempt to deflect. You can
believe I'm keeping up with the discussion. For instance, you're claiming more then an N3
violation. A bucket full of this free momentum is energy. You're claiming a violation of the
first law of thermodynamics. That's not even wrong. Also putting yourself up as an
authority concerning how this matter could possibly move forward. For example centrifugal
forces just out of the question or an out-of-balance wheel is just out of the question.

I'm seeing a full blown case of PMS, perpetual motion syndrome. Now for a bit positive
Feedback. Full steam ahead, damn reality. Also, good luck in finding the mechanics.

[Senax]

I agree with that. We cannot get energy from Newtonian Gravity (NG).
But we can get energy from Ersatz Gravity (EG)..

...
And incidentally, applying neologisms to reference commonly-understood terms adds nothing to their comprehension, and is not the mark of 'earnest science'..

Well Stafford Beer said that it's all a question of using the right language and
I agree with him.

You're not alone in objecting to my use of Ersatz Gravity. I have probably
annoyed most of the forum by it, Ralph especially.
But new wine needs new bottles and I have found it incredibly useful.

In particular it has drawn my attention to the difference between lifting a
weight in EG, lifting a weight in NG, and the falling stick phenomena which
Georg recently referred to.

If Bessler let his lead beads slide down a wheel spoke then he gives them
an acceleration greater than that due to gravity. Strain energy is brought
into play.

[DheerajPandit]

Great Information was very useful for me.

[WaltzCee]

...

Great Information was very useful for me.

Shucks, twrent nuttin. Don't mention it.

Maybe this word problem will help you to see things a little more clearly.

You have 10 apples, and subtract three chickens. How many oranges remain?

The answer is obviously all of them. Just a little homework assignment for you.
Be sure to strap on your double D before you get started.

[MrVibrating]

I agree with that. We cannot get energy from Newtonian Gravity (NG).
But we can get energy from Ersatz Gravity (EG)..

...
And incidentally, applying neologisms to reference commonly-understood terms adds nothing to their comprehension, and is not the mark of 'earnest science'..

Well Stafford Beer said that it's all a question of using the right language and
I agree with him.

You're not alone in objecting to my use of Ersatz Gravity. I have probably
annoyed most of the forum by it, Ralph especially.
But new wine needs new bottles and I have found it incredibly useful.

In particular it has drawn my attention to the difference between lifting a
weight in EG, lifting a weight in NG, and the falling stick phenomena which
Georg recently referred to.

If Bessler let his lead beads slide down a wheel spoke then he gives them
an acceleration greater than that due to gravity. Strain energy is brought
into play.

Soz but when i see common concepts being reworded for no apparent benefit it just says to me "this ain't someone who's measuring shit", and probably not even wearing a bra on his head...

I've experimented replacing gravity with CF force - happy to re-post the sims - and found that it is impossible to gain momentum from CF force as we can with gravity - any gain in momentum on one part comes at expense of that of another / the main axis, hence the net system momentum cannot be altered via the internal expenditure of work, per N3.

To put it another way, 'kiiking' under CF force is physically impossible - any momentum you gain, the rotating system loses.

I would be totally on for a case of beer / wine if proven wrong here, since the implications would be truly awesome, but i'm pretty sure it's a non-starter..

The difference with gravity is that it's a uniform constant acceleration, and doesn't change significantly with height (at our scales), unlike CF force / radius.

The real magic CF force brings to the mix lies with the reactionless nature of inertial torques - hence a 'rotor' can be sped up or slowed down without counter-torquing a 'stator', and hence without incurring counter-momenta; this alone is the special condition that allows a kiiker to vary the relative time periods of the 'rising' vs 'falling' phases of the swing; that is, the 'time-spent-gravitating', and thus exchanging momentum with gravity (being accelerated or decelerated by it), 'up' vs 'down'..

..an actually useful neologism here might be 'G-time' as a short-hand for 'time spent gravitating' - if the 'up' swing has a longer period than the 'down' swing then it has 'negative G-time' and loses momentum, vice-versa and it's positive, with gain.

But 'CF-time' doesn't abstract the same way - it makes no difference how fast or slow the 'up' vs 'down' legs are, the loss of net system momentum is equal to the increase in 'swinging' momentum, instantaneously, conserving net angular momentum.

CF force is 'momentum-conservative'.

Gravity is not..!

[MrVibrating]

..been too busy to get into this lately (working 7 days now so no more weekends!), aside from maybe mumbling into my pillow about it during my 3 hours kip each night.. really need a full weekend to get to grips with anything tho, have the attention-span of a gnat otherwise..


..still, this may be the rantings of a sleep-deprived wraith, but going back to that very first sim on page 1 - the pendu-wheel motor - i keep thinking that maybe the fix is actually dead-simple:

- to accelerate 1 kg to 1 m/s costs ½ J

- if we take 1 second to do so, it costs ½ J

- if we take 1 year and 0.1 milliseconds to do so, it costs ½ J

- it's time invariant..


Previously, the pendu-wheel was programmed to only torque the rotor whilst the bob was descending, and then, using only enough torque to keep the bob's rate of descent constant - ie. to prevent / cancel its acceleration by gravity - beginning the torque input at 12 o' clock, and then locking the two parts together at 6 o' clock whilst coasting back up.

As noted, this caused the per-cycle momentum yield to decrease inversely to rising RPM.

So, what if we changed that control condition slightly, to allow for the fact that there's no apparent reason we can't simply raise the input torque as a function of rising RPM, to maintain a constant per-cycle relative acceleration irregardless of RPM..?

So, sure, there's less time for raising momentum on a per-cycle basis as RPM's increase... so surely we just need to make more momentum in less time, de derp?

This will mean the 'stator' / bob will no longer be falling at constant rate - instead it'll be significantly decelerated, perhaps even reversing direction..

..but this can be mitigated by keeping the impulses very short.. keeping it synced across some useful speed range anyway..

So the revised control condition would attempt to apply a constant relative acceleration per cycle - say, 1 rad/s or less - using as much torque as necessary in order to accomplish that speed change within the available time per cycle at whatever RPM's. Basically, raising input torque to compensate diminishing per-cycle 'G-time'...

This will obviously mean that the stator / bob will be getting decelerated, so, losing momentum, to some extent..

This is why i haven't previously tried it - seems an obvious dead-end..

..but what i hadn't previously considered is that this will also be increasing the system's positive G-time - the stator / bob will be spending more time on the 'descending' side of the wheel, than when rising whilst locked to it.. so, maybe this compensates the momentum lost by decelerating; maybe the additional momentum we get back from gravity, via this delay-whilst-falling, is sufficient to allow for a constant per-cycle momentum yield over some speed range..?


So that's the sim i'm currently working on. Basically, just formulating / refining that control condition.

When it's done, and all metered up, i'll post the results.. might take a bit longer than usual tho..

[WaltzCee]

Soz but when i see common concepts being reworded for no apparent benefit it just says to me "this ain't someone who's measuring shit", and probably not even wearing a bra on his head...

People just don't take this advice seriously. There are several good reasons not to discount it.

• The first one being the conical shape of the devil D focuses your thoughts back to your
  brain. It helps you to concentrate.
  
  Also it acts as a faraday cage. If the MIB or aliens are in the neighborhood, it keeps them
  from listening in.
  
  And finally, if you're deep in thought with your thoughts focused in, it could cause your brain
  to explode. Without the Double D, brains everywhere. I know in some cases that's not going
  to be much of a mess but still you're going to be wandering around picking up your brains.

Safety First, gentleman.

[agor95]

- to accelerate 1 kg to 1 m/s costs ½ J

- if we take 1 second to do so, it costs ½ J

- if we take 1 year and 0.1 milliseconds to do so, it costs ½ J

- it's time invariant..

Just tapped into google and the end momentum K.E. is around 9 J.
So if it actually costs ½ Joules to get 9 J then you have arrived.

Is time * acceleration fixed - double the time then half the acc' rate etc.

P.S. The best work is done when well rested.

Regards