Blood From Stone

[Sam Peppiatt]

Mr. "V",

My level of understanding pretty low, I'm afraid you lost me------------Sam

[MrVibrating]

In a nutshell, it's impossible to gain energy by moving weights around under gravity.

The only thing determining gravitational energy is the force itself (9.81 Newtons), the change in height, and the amount of mass. Since, in a rotating wheel, all such masses will inevitably have to travel equal distance up as down (they can't leave the confines of the wheel), the 'up' and 'down' energies can only ever be equal.


The allure of the possibility of a gain in energy from gravity is one of our chief enemies. It wastes time and resources, on a true fool's errand.

But if you instead change focus to gaining momentum from gravity, then energy gains become a mathematical possibility... because the energy value of momentum is time-dependent, and speed dependent, and the rate of change of momentum is also time-dependent. Mechanical velocity is time-dependent (rate of change of position with respect to time). Angular inertia (MoI) is variable with respect to time, and is a main component of both angular momentum and angular KE.

So, static field interactions = futile, whereas time-variant field interactions = fertile ground for differentials and other cool asymmetries.

But simply moving masses around in 2D and thinking purely in terms of a prospective over-balancing advantage isn't even taking any real interest in the subject.. i've always been shite at maths and have a 110% failure rate on making free mechanical energy.. but at least i've got me head in the game..

OB schemes demean us all..

[MrVibrating]

...accordingly, the one i thought i found last night included.

If you think about it, the CF work involved in hoisting a weight inwards radially at 6 o' clock BDC is neither here nor there - sure, it converts straight to RKE, compounding the CF problem further, but since it's conserving momentum, only adding KE, it's not really the core problem constraining the input costs to ½mV²:

• Suppose we use the technique to raise GPE without incurring CF force; so we drop 1 J of GPE 1 meter, 10 times in a row, for a lift cost of 10 J and a RKE rise of 10 J. If, OTOH, we dropped the weight for 10 meters in one go, it's still 10 J of PE converting to 10 J of KE. Even Stevens.

• So the energy cost of momentum will still square up with rising velocity. Why? Because as RPM's build, the weight will spend less time gravitating each cycle, and since gravity is a constant uniform acceleration, the faster the weight rotates around, the less time per-cycle is spent exchanging momentum with gravity... so we're inputting a constant GPE per cycle, for ever-less output momentum each time it rotates back around to BDC. ½mV² wins again.

It's bollocks. Unless some other circumstance crops up where changing GPE without MoI is the miracle solution.. we'll leave it on the back-burner for now eh..

[silent]

.

[raj]

Hello MrV,

I salute your Physics, Mechanical and Engineering PROWESS.

I, most, respectfully, beg to differ from your over-hyped analysis of a PMM requirements to work.

Look at this simple, plain, logical drawing which I posted way back in June 2011, on this very forum.

The points raised in this drawing has been the basis of all my wheel concepts throughout the past 40 years plus.
IT has not been achieved until now.

The drawings message is self-evident.
Weights on wheels on either side.
Weights move up on the ascending side and move down on the descending side, up and down losing the same HEIGHT.

In the drawing on the left, the wheel stays balanced.
In the drawing of the right, one weight has moved UP AND INSIDE.

Can you, honestly, say that in this drawing on the right, that :
1. the wheel is balanced?
2. There is no TORQUE?
Even, when the weights have moved up and down the same height, doing NO WORK, as you would argue???

My best wishes to you on your wheel search.
God Bless.

Raj

[MrVibrating]

OK, next unlikely pairing of forces... lemme think.. ummm what ain't we tried yet...

...bingo: when i first found this time-dependent momentum thing, i was moving masses radially across the full diameter during the drop, and then just parking 'em there at max radius during the lift. This, again, replicates the effect - even tho the inertial torque has both positive and negative components (cos we're passing through the center and back out to max radius), if we only perform this MoI-swap during the drop, but not the lift, we gain de momtom from gravitah.


So, could this be the way out of our CF bind? If MoI completely inverts during the drop only - so two masses on opposite sides of the rotation move inwards radially, pass each other at the axis and shoot out the other side, swapping locations - and then just do nothing more as the mass swings back up, then by my dodgy reckoning we convert some of the output GPE directly into CF output - so the masses are easier to move out than in, because the rotation's accelerating under gravity, but likewise, it picks up less RKE, by the amount of radial PE collected from CF force.

That drop in RKE isn't a loss, since we now have it stored as PE in the radial actuators, ready to subsidise future work, plus we also spend more time descending, and so collecting more momtom from gravitah.

Then the weight just swings back up, unaccosted by MoI shenanigans, so in less time, and so preserving more of the precious M from the G.

My warped thinking is that since the input and output CF workloads will always be on the same input side of the interaction, rather than split between input and output halves, we don't accumulate a rising net CF cost per cycle, just a fixed-ratio conversion of GKE into sprung PE, that forms a per-cycle energy cost of momentum that doesn't square with velocity...

In other words, we have to tolerate less momentum per cycle, since the only way to gain equal momentum per cycle whilst accumulating the stuff is either to be rotating asynchronously in an orthogonal plane (and i can't sim that in 2D), or else extending MoI, and so collecting the momentum in its inertial component only, sans accélération, and so defeating the whole object of gaining KE (not just momentum for its own sake - we specifically want the velocity component!)..

But so long as the energy we're paying for it doesn't square up per unit cost with rising velocity, that's the only condition required for OU.

IOW, a fixed percentage of input energy-to-momentum per cycle, invariant across some RPM range, could be just the ticket..


So the test rig will just be the same crap as before, only this time moving the masses all the way through the axis and out the other side, on the drop only. The old MoI-swap-drop, where it all began.. I never thought to try cycling it up, with an eye on the momentum / energy ratios..

..plus there's the other way of changing MoI, where a pair of masses swap inner / outer radii, moving at equal radial speed (per MT 30, 31, 40, 41, 42 et al) - does the same job, of fully inverting MoI in one fell swoop, CF output work immediately following input work in one smooth action, just for a lower net change.

So, do that on the drop, don't do it on the lift, log the momenta and energy across some RPM range, if it's even possible to complete a single cycle. Plan.

[MrVibrating]

After mowing the acreage with my 8N tractor and day-dreaming about Bessler wheels, I came inside and went back and read a bunch of old posts here on the forum. There have been a LOT (and I mean a LOT) of people trying to shift weights and even Bessler himself agrees with your Mr.V that it's impossible to gain energy by moving weights around under gravity. It's in vain.

You've been at this for quite some time Mr.V - I found a bunch of your older posts where you've done a LOT of in-depth research on these rotating masses. How in the heck did Bessler get OU within a few rotations of his wheel? The guy must have been an absolute genius to be able to get this figured out. I guess it all depends if you're lucky enough to receive the idea in a dream.

So now, we have his toy clues and how in the heck are you supposed to take 2 parallelograms with little characters holding hammers, a top, an impossible arrangement of tongs, and a chain/jacob's ladder and turn that into rotation?

I guess that's the trick isn't it? LOL!


silent

The lower hammer toy hammer-shapes correlate with those in MT 138/139 IIRC, where they appear to correspond to some kind of lesson about long weight levers - esp. those diametric ones. As noted, their ideal purpose is when you want full GPE output without wasting any to OB (cos they don't produce none) - so if they're no good for OB, they must have some other utility because of that (rather than merely in spite of it). Bessler keeps showing them trying to move radial loads, yet this couldn't be for OB purposes (because they're just totally incapable of it; no matter how you gear it up, the system always keels weight-levers-down, whatever meagre weight they've raise wobbling around up top uselessly).

But if you wanted a robust PE input to power an MoI variation, then they'd make a lot more sense.

That would mean the lower hammer toy represents just such a non-OB GPE workload, whilst the upper one represents an inertial interaction..

Dunno.. it was thinking about the potential merits of changing GPE without OB that led me to considering changing GPE w/o MoI..

The chain & staff is a Sagan-esque 'hieroglyph' of a series of asymmetric inertial interactions / angular accelerations.

The solution has to be about accumulating reactionless momentum from gravity, because that's the only mathematical possibility for OU. There just isn't any other theoretical possibility..

[raj]

MrV,

I wish you have answered my two Very VERY simple questions based on my drawing above, in SIMPLE, " YES OR NO " layman's language, instead of bla bla bla, showing off your physics intellect.

[silent]

.

[MrVibrating]

Hello MrV,

I salute your Physics, Mechanical and Engineering PROWESS.

I, most, respectfully, beg to differ from your over-hyped analysis of a PMM requirements to work.

Look at this simple, plain, logical drawing which I posted way back in June 2011, on this very forum.

The points raised in this drawing has been the basis of all my wheel concepts throughout the past 40 years plus.
IT has not been achieved until now.

The drawings message is self-evident.
Weights on wheels on either side.
Weights move up on the ascending side and move down on the descending side, up and down losing the same HEIGHT.

In the drawing on the left, the wheel stays balanced.
In the drawing of the right, one weight has moved UP AND INSIDE.

Can you, honestly, say that in this drawing on the right, that :
1. the wheel is balanced?
2. There is no TORQUE?
Even, when the weights have moved up and down the same height, doing NO WORK, as you would argue???

My best wishes to you on your wheel search.
God Bless.

Raj

Yes, i've been demonstrating just this type of interaction in the previous pages - you gain momentum from gravity.

Gravity is the source of torque.

No torque needs applying at the axis

The system will accumulate those momentum gains over successive cycles, building up momentum, exclusively drawn from gravity.

However, the energy cost of moving the weight inwards against CF force square with velocity, because CF force is mass times angular velocity squared times radius - so doubling the RPM's quadruples the work required to pull the mass inwards each cycle.

Moreover, as RPM's build up, the under-balanced 'OB' center-of gravity spends less and less time gravitating each cycle, so the per-cycle momentum gains go down with rising speed, whilst the input energy cost of raising that momentum goes up..

..and so if we calculate the energy cost of momentum either per-cycle at any speed or across some spread of speed or time, we find that the relationship precisely conforms to ½mV², and both CoM and CoE remain unassailed.

I'm trying to grab the bull by the horns and find a way out of this bind, mate. "OU" cannot be magic, if it's to be a thing - mechanical OU means excess PE and/or KE; the former is force times displacement, the latter, ½mV². So 'OU' has to be physically substantiated in these friggin' components. This is the hand we're dealt. It's what we've got to work with. A solution has to be fully consistent with both. That means the only possible solution is an effective violation of Newton's 3rd and thus 1st laws, resulting in a divergent inertial frame in which the input energy cost of momentum does not square with its rising system velocity. The value of that momentum in the external reference frame is (always, by default) a function of velocity squared, hence coherent OU is possible from first principles, without invoking any magical thinking.

Perpetually looking at OB schemes is the 'research' equivalent of a crack habit mate. It's classic pathological science. Real science is measuring shit. Form testable hypotheses, test prediction, analyse results, modify theory and repeat. That means empirically (because there is no other way - we can't 'see' momentum and KE with our untrained eyes. We have to Google the relevant formulas, and apply them in Notepad and Calculator).

You above all people should be simming Raj, or at least taking more interest in manual calcs. You could calculate the OB torque in your above system , the CF input / output works, the input / output momenta.. they're all three or four digit formulas..

Again, i've always shied away from maths, but knowing there is a solution awaiting rediscovery is all the motivation i need, to want to get my hands dirty, and head in a twist..

[MrVibrating]

MrV,

I wish you have answered my two Very VERY simple questions based on my drawing above, in SIMPLE, " YES OR NO " layman's language, instead of bla bla bla, showing off your physics intellect.

I'm discussing OU on an OU forum, so we're either talking physics, or magical thinking.

Can't be half-in half-out...

[MrVibrating]

Play nice raj. Mr.V has stated in the past that he doesn't always go back and read all the posts, so let's throw him a bone.

I was raised with a pretty good vocabulary and in my day-to-day speaking, I've had people accuse me of being high and mighty and they ask me, "Why do you talk with big words?" It's because I was taught what those words meant and so I started using them. I'm at the point now if someone accosts me over my vocabulary, I tell them to pi$$ off and leave me alone.

I honestly don't think he's trying to impress - he just knows what the heck he is talking about and understands it intimately. I'm not offended at all. I'm the students trying to learn here so who am I?

Anyway Mr.V thanks for sharing your thoughts. I have to look up definitions and read your posts for awhile to let it all soak in. Tonight's lesson was learning was a diametric lever is and time-dependent momentum. For sure this is some kind of a timing game going on and once the timing is figured out, I think that's where the OU is gonna show up.

silent

Thanks mate, do appreciate your encouragement! And yeah - weight levers wot span the diameter, instead of the radius. So, a kind of orbiting axis, only with double the radius, and oscillating rather than fully rotating. He keeps showing them in pairs. Negligible torque when they drop. Useless for generating OB themselves, at any rate.

And time-dependence is the key to OU generally, whether mechanical, electromagnetic, whatever. It's the difference between a thermodynamically closed system (such as GPE interactions) vs an open one, such as one that gains momentum and/or energy.

In order for output and input energy not to be symmetrical, they have to scale differently, according to differing energy terms, with their own respective time-dependent variables. So they might be in different fields - inertial, gravitational, EM or whatever - or subject to different exponents or time derivatives of motion, like a scalar vs a vector (ie. PE vs KE), thus input to output efficiency evolves - perhaps even non-linearly - over time and/or velocity.

So time-dependent energy terms - specifically with regards to differences between input and output energy conditions - is absolutely the name of the OU game.

And in the current scheme, the toe-hold here is that whilst mechanical speeds are somewhat arbitrary (we can accelerate or prolong lifts and drops as much as we like using inertial torques), the rate of change of momentum of a gravitating system is a constant 9.81 kg-m/s per kg of gravitating mass. Not to imply any 'push gravity' or 'flow / flux' theories, but it's a bit like getting wetter the more time you spend under the shower. The amount of momentum a gravitating body exchanges with Earth via gravity is a function of its 'exposure time' to the gravitating condition, up or down.

However, if, in a closed system of interacting masses, we tried to accelerate our lift, or delay a fall, to gain momentum this way, using any conventional means of applying force or torque, we'd invariably also be applying equal counter force to the system, and hence could not achieve the desired speed-variation in the first place... only the transiently-reactionless nature of inertial torque (the ice-skater effect) surmounts this limitation, and so makes it possible to harness asymmetric momentum interactions with gravity, in an otherwise closed system of interacting masses.

For now, though, that's as far as we've got - the next hurdle is to prevent its cost of accumulation from squaring up with its rising velocity, per ½mV².

If we can do that, we'll be buying cheap momentum from a little insider trading, that's still worth standard rates in the external reference frame.

Again, just for an example, if we have 1 kg and can buy 1 kg-m/s of momentum for 1 Joule, repeatedly as speed accumulates, then after 10 cycles we've spent 10 Joules for 10 kg-m/s. Dead simple, right?

But 1 kg at 10 meters a second has 50 Joules, not 10. So we'd be 5x OU.

½mV² is enforced by Newton's 3rd law; motion's relative, therefore so's speed, thus also momentum and KE, and if the former's always conserved then the latter is always measured relative to it (a center of momentum reference frame), which is what substantiates the 'V' in ½mV² (rate of change of position relative to some other inertia or body), thus excess mechanical energy means breaking 'N3 symmetry' and harnessing effectively-reactionless momentum - it's honestly a lot more simple than i'm making out, if you just consider why 'KE equals half em vee squared'. Late and i'm all ranted out. Bed.

[raj]

MrV.

Thank you.

So !!! Talking about 'TORQUE" is not Physics talk?
Talking about "TORQUE" is Magical Thinking!

WOW! That's mind-boggling!

Please allow me to ask you another simple clarifying question.
Is Besslerwheel.com forum Besslerwheel PMM forum OR an OU forum???
Kindly do not remind me of Magical thinking. Please!

MrV.
HAIL!!! You are the WISEST OF ALL WISES.

Raj

[silent]

.

[silent]

.