..make your mind up? First you're saying it must be wrong because there's no such thing as reactionless momentum rise, to which i say:
Whassat then, Scotch mist?
But now you're saying that the earth provides a reaction. You're assuming..
..and i too have long said that if we have KE gain, then we also have stray counter-momenta being sunk to earth via gravity. I suspect it's what caused the 1717 mega-quake in New Zealand's Alpine fault line, along with the freaking tidal waves that engulfed NW Europe that Christmas - the earthed counter-momentum from Bessler's Weissenstein castle demo..
But the point is, that counter-momentum
is not manifested
inside our accelerating system. That's why it's 'OU'. Fundamentally, we are applying a force between two equal inertias, that
does not cause equal opposite accelerations.
It's a deceptively simple interaction, but study the sim above - the suspended masses
want to drop, but are being held aloft by counter-force from the inertial interaction, thus the input momentum is being applied to only one mass of each pair. This is, effectively, an asymmetric inertial interaction
with respect to the 'closed system of masses interacting about a common axis' - ie. we're not seeing equal opposing momenta being generated, all of it is single-signed, and so its net is non-zero; a subsequent inelastic collision / braking between each pair would conserve that momentum rise, accelerating the static mass, and equally decelerating the moving one, leaving the net system at half the velocity of either moving mass, and quartering their net KE.
The KE gain is based on this principle. Counter-momentum is being sunk to earth, via gravity.
For example, consider the above vertical linear example; the entire planet is being drawn upwards, by gravity, towards the static upper mass. The planet is gaining momentum relative to it. But the suspended mass is
not gaining momentum - it's not going
anywhere. So, just as we have an effectively asymmetric inertial interaction about the system axis, we have
another, acting between the planet and the inertially-suspended weight.
Consider a water-filled balloon, in space, with a big steel ball at its center; any acceleration of the balloon will displace the steel ball towards the walls, compressing the fluid on that side. This is what i think may have precipitated the 1717 mega-quake in NZ. The whole planet was being accelerated upwards, ever so slightly, by Bessler's largest, most powerful 5-week wheel demo. Likewise, all the fluids (atmosphere and oceans) sloshed downwards, then rebounded back up to later converge on the epicenter of the acceleration vector - NW Europe. This first tsunami was associated with the initiation and sustaining of the demo; a second, weaker one with its cessation. This acceleration was being applied throughout the five weeks.
The only reason i found out about those events, is because i realised only an N3 break could cause mech. OU, but which meant counter-momenta were being earthed.. so i went and
looked for extreme weather events that might've occurred at the same time as that demo.. and immediately found that yes, indeed, there was a
fucking biblical storm surge, unprecedented before or since,
at the same time as the demo.. the very fucking definition of a 'coincidence'.. Then i twigged that the same logic applied to geological activity, so flipped Google Earth upside down to see what was directly opposite Germany, and there was NZ.. so i Googled for extreme geological events in 1717 and sure enough, there
was one - a fucking mega-quake.
If we want safe free energy, then these aren't encouraging coincidences. Ideally, we'd want
no extreme weather
or geological events in 1717 - instead, we had
both..
Re-running the last sim again, with independent KE meters on both parts; this should enable direct correlation of motor work with KE changes, to see exactly where this 0.33 J of motor work is going.. if the anomaly's real, this could be the evidence that wraps it..
A pendulum on a wheel is ATEOTD, just a pendulum on a wheel.
A 'pendulum' usually connotes oscillation - which is absolutely not the gig here. For our purposes, it's an
angular inertia, that's
also a GPE.
A kiiker is just a pendulum on a giant wheel.
..that gains momentum from the internal expenditure of work, without applying counter-torque at the axis.
..and
again - FYI - there is virtually
no momentum gain accumulating here. Precious little, anyway - enough to prove that you're wrong, regardless, but no way
near enough to account for the 200% energy gains.
This can only mean one thing - the momentum gain that
must be associated with the KE gain (since they're both made of the same components) must be transient - it only exists for the first half of the cycle, presumably whilst the acceleration is being applied.
You insist there's no reactionless momentum rise, yet there's no mech. OU / 'KE gains'
without one, so if you believe B. was genuine then only an effective N3 break can consistently vindicate that belief.
I get you're trying to prove a concept
Rubbish. I'm reverse-engineering mech. OU from first principles. Measuring the efficiencies of mechanical interactions. There is no 'concept' besides the dependence of PE-to-KE symmetry upon N3 and CoM - the de-facto causative principles of mech. OU. I'm posting late-night text bombs to 3-line melvins i should be ignoring, casting pearls before swine, then mud-wrestling them, all that good stuff, but "trying to prove a concept" i deny outright. That would be unscientitious, and breaking the vows i took when i put on this head-bra.
