Decoupling Per-Cycle Momemtum Yields From RPM

[MrVibrating]

In two minds whether to update this anymore, but i ran an overnighter last night, that this morning correlated the net energy gains to the velocity and KE differences caused by the gravitationally-biased inertial interaction.

The net of KE plus heat is equal to the difference between the KE the bob loses, and the KE the wheel gains, from the torque applied between them.

So, those are the optimisation parameters..

[MrVibrating]

That's just crazy talk. If you could follow up with more data to support it, like your local ferris wheel causing a tsunami in Japan I might devote a few more lines to it.

Why would a fucking Ferris wheel cause a tsunami? But no, 'conservation of momentum', that's crazy talk. Carry on..

The reaction does manifest inside the system, if you include the ground as part of the system. That's why it's not OU.

..so Bessler's wheels weren't OU for the same reason? Because they included the ground?


Gnnhh can't you grasp that it's the balance of momentum of the frickin' rotating system that matters WRT OU? Of course the system's open to gravity, duh, N3 is inviolable otherwise due to mass constancy and the speed of light. The momentum gain and subsequent KE gains have to be generated about a common axis of rotation, isolated from the environment (ie. no torque at the bearings). That's what mech OU is.

Just as the planet is drawn towards the upper mass, the upper mass is drawn towards the planet via gravity, in accordance with UGL.

But there's nothing stopping the planet accelerating, unlike the inertially-suspended weight.. if there's KE gain, there's FoR divergence, because ½Iw². I is invariant here, only w is variable, therefore PE and KE must have different reference frames. We already know it's an asymmetric inertial interaction, biased by gravity. You already complain that the system's not closed.. your positions are inconsistent. Velocity components of earthed momenta are infinitesimal, but real, non-trivial and conserved, potentially accumulating over time. Any changes B. made to the system likely persist to this day.

But the mechanism is a pendulum on a wheel, is it not?

No, it's a point-source orbital angular inertia, since that's its job, all its there for. A 'pendulum' oscillates, whereas this one decelerates then crashes. It's not the same thing at all.

Good luck in your head bra.

Double-D's, bro. Not relying on luck..

[MrVibrating]

..so unless heating is the desired form of output energy, braking the KE gain dissipatively is obviously sub-optimal design.

The key point is that the energy gain is already there at 6 o' clock BDC, in the instant before the brake bites; which simply converts it to heat. But why do that in the first place, if heat isn't the desired form of output energy? Yes, the velocity difference between the two parts has to be equalised to complete each cycle, but the energy gain is there as soon as the asymmetric velocity change has occurred.

Besides, the energy gain is proportionate to the target relative speed - raising it, raises the gain in direct linear proportion, so this is probably the first optimisation factor to play with:


One cycle, TRS = 10 rad/s:

Data acquired with bob at BDC, one frame prior to brake activation:

initial KE = 96.1704 J
net KE = 147.4260 J
KE rise = 51.2556 J

T*a = 26.3616
GPE out = (G * 1 kg * 2 m) = 19.6133

26.3616 + 19.6133 = 45.9749 J

51.2556 J - 45.9749 J = 5.2807 J of 'free' energy is right there, ready to perform useful work.. which could be heating, in which case simple braking could be ideal, but... can't we raise an OB weight or summink instead? Whatever load we apply it to, once that energy's harvested the two parts are back to equal velocity regardless, so the sound effects are somewhat incidental, ie. 'inelastic collisions', 'bangs' etc. are incidental to re-equalising the speeds, and also to producing and harnessing the gains.

As such, a 'banger' is only viable if using a low TRS, since as it is increased, the proportion of the gain coming out as heat increases, as the ratio of input energy to raw output KE decreases. Fine for a simple demo / desktop toy, but little else..

We want the increasing efficiency of higher TRS ranges, but without having to include a thermal plant in the loop..

So, having generated the momentum asymmetry and resulting KE gain, a simple way to harness it into some form of 'perpetuating' interaction, like raising an OB weight, would seem just the ticket; braking the two parts against each other by sharing a GPE lift.. You know it makes sense..

Scissorjack time? Converting braking torque at the 'handles' into a radial lift of OB GPE? Just a pulley system mebe..?

With the net system KE increasing by 5 J per cycle, RPM's will rise much more quickly, with G-time per cycle decreasing accordingly; here, we can however keep trading torque for angle at ever-higher RPM's, something Bessler couldn't, back then.. hence we can maintain a TRS to ever-higher speeds, and efficiencies...(!)

This is gonna be nuts..

[ME]

Why not just use a rotary spring? Why not just use a radial GPE, per the MT 40 arrangement -...

Temporarily, for verification purposes as it is somewhat more limited than a motor

Because your motor calculus is an indirect measurement; You assume it is correct, somehow it isn't.
The information you gave about the calculus seems to indicate that it should indeed give you the right values, I have no idea what happened in your calculus... but Overunity would be the last resort hypothesis.
For a conclusive answer on such hypothesis, you just have to build. Simple as that.

How can we attempt to verify a simulator with the simulator? By trying to find an equivalent function that can be measured directly.
I'm not talking about design, I talk about measurement.
I'm talking about measurements from a Kutta-Merson solver from which you conclude that it is able to produce overunity.
When you know what that solver is trying to solve, then you could figure out why it can't create overunity, or why you otherwise can't trust those values.

So to continue...
Hence I used a spring as an equivalent to a motor.
A linear one.
Because it's the simplest and the limited energy supply is very beneficial here. Proof me wrong about that solver and replenish spring potential without using motors or actuators.
That spring is also beneficial for anyone, besides you and me, who want to verify with a calculator or a simulator without the need of manual integration and then maybe only need a tiny bit of algebra.
You can always ramp-up complexity.
The spring variant is a direct measurement because you can track spring potential as you simulate; the formula's are the simplest; and spring potential is not affected by some frame of reference or whatever unforeseen stuff.
Maybe we can find out what happened to your manual integral... or figure out why/how that motor produces the values it does, .. or why it could be overunity if you want. You still need other measurements to check against.

So here's an example that mimics the start and end-condition of the motor part of the first cycle (Still: https://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/view ... 602#169602 )
These are my reference values (almost similar):

Code: Select all

Cycle    E.k [Joules]    w.Bob [rad/s]  w.Wheel [rad/s]    
 0           96.1704          9.80665          9.80665    Brake
 0.25       105.9673         10.29453         10.29355    Motor
 0.50       147.4229          6.06448         16.06449    delta 10 rad/s
 0.50       122.4228         11.06449         11.06449    (Inelastic)
 1          102.8088         10.13947         10.13947    Cycle done
 1.25       112.6021         10.61190         10.61092    Motor
 1.50       153.7299          6.34579         16.34597    delta 10 rad/s
 1.50       128.7290         11.34588         11.34588    (Inelastic)
 2          109.1149         10.44581         10.44581    Cycle done
…
 9          147.1444         12.13031         12.13031    Cycle done
 9.25       156.9280         12.52758         12.52660    Motor
 9.50       196.5816          8.09884         18.09895    delta 10 rad/s
 9.50       171.5810         13.09889         13.09889    (Inelastic)
10          151.9671         12.32749         12.32750    Cycle done

I autgenerated the same text as earlier, but now with new data:
- The flywheel (radius 1m) goes 10.294 rad/s anticlockwise;
- The green-bob has a downwards velocity of 10.294 m/s (radially also 10.294 rad/s)
- The blue spring has a spring-constant of 111 N/m;
- The blue spring has a rest-length of 0.50687 m;
- Over distance of 1.4142 m, the spring is expanded by 0.9073 m. With this we can calculate the initial spring potential;
- The total kinetic energy is 105.9664 Joules, The spring potential is 45.6915 Joules.

When the green-bob (after pi/2 rad) reaches 6-o'clock then difference in radial velocity will be 10 rad/s as designed.
- The Green-bob goes 6.0645 m/s to the right (Ek=18.3891 J);
- The flywheel goes 16.0645 rad/s CCW (Ek=129.0341 J)
- The Increase in kinetic energy is 41.4568 Joules;
- Because the flywheel rotated 4.2006 rad = 2.6298 rad+pi/2, the spring is stretched by 0.5033 m
- Thus the current spring potential is 14.06 Joule, so it lost 31.6315 Joule;
- The Green bob lost 9.80665 Joules in Gravitational Potential Energy,
- The sum amount of lost potential energy, equals the sum amount of kinetic energy;

Unfortunately, the system is very sensitive to used accuracy. For a ten times higher simulation accuracy I found that a spring rest-length of 0.50674 m was needed to get this 10rad/s difference. The values should still balance and close to reference.

Anyway, the initial begin- and end-speed of the Green-bob is now much closer to your result for the first cycle during the 9:00 till 6:00 action, and so is the flywheel. As the velocities dictate the resulting amount of total kinetic energy,, so does this amount of energy match,
Besides the method of making this 10rad/s difference happen, the only difference we actually have is the amount of work we calculate;
In my case the diminished spring potential matches the kinetic energy increase exactly!
You have an overunity motor for some reason... what's the explanation?

Its axial MoI is intentionally left out of the equation; its orbital MoI is fucking paramount,

Agor rightfully mentioned the Bob's Moment of Inertia.
I explained that it was left out, and how he could see that it was left out. Its "fucking" orbit was not mentioned by Agor, as that's indeed obviously paramount for that idea.

Sorry that I'm not making it easy for you.

[ME]

This is gonna be nuts..

Agreed.

PE and KE must have different reference frames.

Oh. why don't you just say you don't understand.

Data acquired with bob at BDC, one frame prior to brake activation:

initial KE = 96.1704 J
net KE = 147.4260 J
KE rise = 51.2556 J

T*a = 26.3616
GPE out = (G * 1 kg * 2 m) = 19.6133

26.3616 + 19.6133 = 45.9749 J

51.2556 J - 45.9749 J = 5.2807 J of 'free' energy is right there, ready to perform useful work

Ehm nope, sorry.

Your KE rise is 51.2556 Joules
Part comes from the green bob pendulum that drops its GPE (19.6133 J).
This may increase stuff temporarily for this first half cycle, but it's also needed to bring it back up again for the second half cycle.
So you're left with 51.2556-19.6133 = 31.6423 Joules that comes from the motor that creates the 10rad/s difference.
Than with the inelastic clash it loses: 25 Joules.

• A hint (for others):
  E.start= ½I·(ω-5)²+½I·(ω+5)²
  Momentum clash and conservation I·(ω-5) + I·(ω+5) := (I+I)·(ω+5+w-5)
  E.end = ½I·(ω)²+½I·(ω)²
  Difference: 2·½·5²

31.6423 - 25 = 6.6423 Joules
Ready to perform an increase in angular velocity per cycle.

[MrVibrating]

Oh. why don't you just say you don't understand.

WTF are you moaning about now? You've quoted a line from a response to Eccentrically1 where i'm pointing out that the earth must've been accelerated by gravity, since PE and KE obviously have different FoR's - ie. the latter's velocity component has been accelerated, which is why there's energy gain.

It's obviously you who cannot understand, and you're being typically snidey and disingenuous about it, besides which i simply don't have the time to argue with you - i literally have a couple of hours a day for this, anything more is encroaching on sleep time, and i get fuck-all as it is..

This is not 'collaboration'. We're not collaborating, here. Especially not with this attitude.

Because your motor calculus is an indirect measurement; You assume it is correct, somehow it isn't.

It's friggin' T*a, verified against the integral of T*w*t over time, and then further verified against the velocity and KE rises; 1 rad/s on 1 kg-m² costs ½ J, but 1 rad/s relative between two 1 kg-m² MoI's only needs accelerate each to ½ rad/s in opposite directions; at half the velocity each, they have a quarter the KE, and input cost. Likewise, if you meter the KE's of each part individually (so take the KE of the wheel, then subtract that from kinetic() to get that of the bob + hub), you see that the evolving KE distribution is proportionate to twice the sqrt of the velocity divergence caused by the gravitationally-accelerated T*a workload - hence the 0.33 J (or whatever for a given example) is correct, and the KE gain is being caused by gravitational acceleration of the motor's reference frame.

How can we attempt to verify a simulator with the simulator?

With basic physics; L=Iw and KE=½Iw². There is no anomaly, outside of your head.

Agor rightfully mentioned the Bob's Moment of Inertia.

Yes.

I explained that it was left out, and how he could see that it was left out. Its "fucking" orbit was not mentioned by Agor, as that's indeed obviously paramount for that idea.

No, you slapped him down with your usual BS in your usual style, but he was right and you were wrong, because you still cannot grasp the relationship between CoM and CoE, even after all these years of having it tirelessly repeated for you.

The principle interaction is between two equal MoI's, one of which is also subject to gravity. The bob's axial axis is obviously unused - its active MoI is orbital, per mr².

Sorry this has already taken up more time than i have available.

Sorry that I'm not making it easy for you.

Typical ME mindset. If only you'd play the ball, not the man..

The target's CoE, not me. This blue-on-blue BS is just wasting good ammo..

[eccentrically1]

That's just crazy talk. If you could follow up with more data to support it, like your local ferris wheel causing a tsunami in Japan I might devote a few more lines to it.

Why would a fucking Ferris wheel cause a tsunami? But no, 'conservation of momentum', that's crazy talk. Carry on..

Why would a Bessler wheel cause a tsunami as you say?

The reaction does manifest inside the system, if you include the ground as part of the system. That's why it's not OU.

..so Bessler's wheels weren't OU for the same reason? Because they included the ground?

His wheels weren’t OU for the same reasons any machine isn’t OU.


Gnnhh can't you grasp that it's the balance of momentum of the frickin' rotating system that matters WRT OU? Of course the system's open to gravity, duh, N3 is inviolable otherwise due to mass constancy and the speed of light. The momentum gain and subsequent KE gains have to be generated about a common axis of rotation, isolated from the environment (ie. no torque at the bearings). That's what mech OU is.

I can grasp that we can’t isolate a machine from its
environment. (I.e. no reactionless momentum gains). That’s why there is no mechanical OU.

Just as the planet is drawn towards the upper mass, the upper mass is drawn towards the planet via gravity, in accordance with UGL.

But there's nothing stopping the planet accelerating, unlike the inertially-suspended weight.. if there's KE gain, there's FoR divergence, because ½Iw². I is invariant here, only w is variable, therefore PE and KE must have different reference frames. We already know it's an asymmetric inertial interaction, biased by gravity. You already complain that the system's not closed.. your positions are inconsistent. Velocity components of earthed momenta are infinitesimal, but real, non-trivial and conserved, potentially accumulating over time. Any changes B. made to the system likely persist to this day.

My position hasn’t changed. Stick this baby on a wheel and watch it decelerate and crash, waiting for mrv to push the button.

Ecc1 wrote:

The only way the above sim works as shown (equal masses in actuator example) is if the top mass is prevented from being accelerated by being mounted to the wheel (as you said earlier about the pendulum example being attached via the motor and brake and bearing). If it's mounted to the wheel, let's say the right hand side, the wheel would rotate CW just from the weight of the actuator/mass mech. After it's released, you say the top mass doesn't move because it's mounted to the wheel, but I say it has to move because it's mounted to a wheel. It would move some distance depending on the mass of the wheel, the mass of the weights, and the amount of the actuator force. Unless there was an identical mech on the left hand side, firing at the same time. Then the wheel would be balanced, and the wheel should remain still. The question everyone has is: does this mechanism have mechanical OU from first principles on a wheel? I wish.

But the mechanism is a pendulum on a wheel, is it not?

No, it's a point-source orbital angular inertia, since that's its job, all its there for. A 'pendulum' oscillates, whereas this one decelerates then crashes. It's not the same thing at all.

Good luck in your head bra.

Double-D's, bro. Not relying on luck..

Good for you bro. If those don’t get er done, try bigger cups.

[ME]

... i simply don't have the time to argue with you - i literally have a couple of hours a day for this, anything more is encroaching on sleep time, and i get fuck-all as it is..

Well, that only explains your [...] reaction style.

Sorry this has already taken up more time than i have available.

Sorry that I'm not making it easy for you.

Typical ME mindset. If only you'd play the ball, not the man..

hmm... you skipped and didn't bother the whole ballpark, invented all kinds of assumptions as some sort of attack and took one sentence of attempted apology and turned it into blame.. nice one!

..since PE and KE obviously have different FoR's

PE and KE only have a relation within the same frame of reference. That's how it works.


Here's a new one: I suspect strangely enough that we (mrV. and ME) are both correct... !!
:-)
I hope I can write down what happens in the simulator.

The motor does not need the whole quarter to create the 10rad/s separation.
It indeed invests about 25.6 Joules for the 10rad/s separation for about one third of the height of the bottom quarter (after about 18.9° engagement).
After that, the motor locks itself to the pendulum?
The rest of the pendulum potential (about 0.676 m--> 6.63 J in GPE) is used to accelerate them both.
So according to the available data it so seems that mrV is correct in his conclusion.
... When we assume that this data is indeed correct.

To lock this system in sub-microseconds the wheel has to change the acceleration from 154.6 rad/s² till ... (data says 0 rad/s²)
According to measurement the pendulum goes from a -145.46 rad/s² (deceleration) to +9.295 rad/s acceleration (according to the data).

When we track the velocities of the pendulum bob and the flywheel and calculate both their dω/dt to get us their real angular acceleration, then we see that the acceleration is almost split between the two.
The question is, are the wheel and the bob a coupled pair or not after reaching that 10rad/s separation?
Attached shows the calculated dω/dt and the struggle of WM2D to split that difference because the wheel acceleration and motor-torque is set to a solid zero.

When it would not be coupled, then the wheel (with a disengaged motor, and disengaged brake) would freewheel with the same velocity it had at the moment the motor disengaged (15,49 rad/s).
But the wheel can't be coupled either, because that would mean that they would have the same velocity, yet the pendulum goes with 5.49 rad/s at motor disengagement.
We can test that effect by calculating the uncoupled situation where the pendulum bob has that position (270°+18.9°) and given velocity, and let it drop till reaching BDC.
The amount of total kinetic energy should just increase with that mentioned 6.629 Joule GPE it has from the height of the pendulum bob and reaching an end-velocity of about 6.59 rad/s (request a write out), instead of the 6.06 rad/s.
Because it didn't accelerate the flywheel it falls short in energy. It is some reversed effect as happens with the inelastic collision, but apparently only valid within the simulator.

It is a mystery how how in reality to split the acceleration while having a speed differential.
Any locking attempt (string, spring, damper, magnet) would engage an early momentum-clash, and would thus drain energy instead of increasing it.

Summary:
The simulator keeps the motor in a tight-enough lock with the pendulum and somehow splits the gravitational force that acts on the pendulum alone.
As a result only the pendulum should accelerate, yet the motor keeps it tight: it should invest energy in order to apply a force to keep the pendulum close from otherwise getting ahead;
Yet the implied acceleration is not registered as an effort of the motor, but it is still doing it.

Maybe it is programming that's applied to this torque that overrides the values and messes things up.
Anyway, mrV, your data is insufficient.

[WaltzCee]

Anyway, truly many thanks to those who motivated their positive opinions about me.
Yet, Troll or no troll; Right or wrong; Headline or footnote, Terran or extraterrestrial... siriusly, we are talking about a potential Scientific discovery here!
It should be relatively easy to verify this stuff without grasping at opinions... to know things with science, for science, by science.
Things are either Overunity or it isn't.... opinions are plenty.

I'm certainly glad y'all on speaking terms again.

Back when I made the pissing up a wet rope comment, my thinking was that we are not
going to find an answer to overunity using the same mathematical descriptions that prove
it is not possible.

That is double-minded thinking, and unstable in all its ways. Now that reasoning and
Marchello's opinion (and other opinions) of the matter, make me to be incredibly dubious
this has Merit.

Having said all that I have no problem with people spinning their wheels. It's their Wheels.

Christopher, Christopher Robin. They, they sold my body parts.

[ME]

When the mathematics show it's impossible, then definitely don't use a simulator! Especially one that's designed to make the values balance.
The simulator is useful in making quicker calculations than manual labor and paperwork.
It shows what could normally be expected, a ground truth so to speak. (At least when it's used correctly and the software is not buggy).
You should check your actual mechanism against this ground truth to see how it differs... to avoid opinion and getting hijacked by conformation bias.

Yet, I do have problems with false information and false hope and false facts... very relevant these days.
It undermines trust in verifiable facts and science in general, for the sake of one individual opinion.

Nevertheless, interesting things may happen on the edge of science.
Perhaps there are unknown overlooked effects and discoveries (recently: Physicsworld.com: Hall effect, ).
When there is indeed suspected overunity, there is only one solution to be sure: Build!

No Physical wheel - No Overunity

[Senax]

No Physical wheel - No Overunity

Absolutely.

[MrVibrating]

@ME i can't be arsed to keep repeating myself for you - you've contributed nothing except repeats of stuff i've already laid out, and as for;

PE and KE only have a relation within the same frame of reference. That's how it works.

No one can be this thick - the KE would equal PE, but for the gravitational acceleration of the motor and net system. It's an OU interaction, thus input and output energies have differing respective FoR's - that's what OU is, for the umpteenth time..

What you're arguing (and i suspect that you're blithely unaware of it) is that there is no counter-momentum induced to earth via gravity. If you're right here, and i'm wrong, then it's just magical, free energy, from nowhere, with absolutely no caveats or adverse consequences. I don't know why i'm even responding to such blather..

Maybe it is programming that's applied to this torque that overrides the values and messes things up.
Anyway, mrV, your data is insufficient.

Given that you're incapable of even following the CoM /CoE dependency, or, thus, substantiating the gain, i consider your opinions irrelevant noise; the torque control is just that, and nothing more - the meters simply plot it (torque) as a function of angle, or w*t over t.

Again, the motor workload is already correlated with the respective angular accelerations of the two parts - it's the right amount, no more or less. The KE gain is already correlated with the difference between the KE the bob thus loses, and the KE the wheel gains - the latter gains more than the former loses, because of the effective N3 break (gravity skews the momentum distributions caused by the applied torque), and the fact that KE squares with velocity. There is no anomaly. Nothing that doesn't match up perfectly. It's 'insufficient' for you because you have a poor grasp of the physics.

The two phases of the interaction you mention, i've already described.

We can do a very simple sim to test the secondary hypothesis:

• attach a small, light wheel to the background with a pin joint

• attach a larger wheel to it, coaxially, via a motor

• suspend a weight from a rope that spools off the smaller 'base' wheel

• give the large wheel some preset speed (say 1 rad/s or whatever)

• control the motor to maintain that speed

• drop the weight, torquing the net system

The secondary hypothesis is that the wheel will undergo a greater rise in rotational KE, than the corresponding output of GPE that has caused it. However, since the entire motor is being accelerated by gravity, and is maintaining a constant speed, its applied torque will be zero, with no work done by it, thus an OU result.


Just to restate the primary hypothesis, in contrast; the net energy gain (KE plus heat) is already correlated with the fact that the rotor speeds up more than the bob slows down, despite their having equal MoI's.

Could both hypotheses be true at the same time, then?

The secondary hypothesis says that we can increase the gain pretty much arbitrarily, simply by increasing the preset speed of the wheel; if the weight-drop is sufficient to cause say a 10 rad/s acceleration of the net system, then a wheel being thus accelerated from 20 up to 30 rad/s will gain much more KE than one being accelerated from say 10 up to 20 rad/s..

The only reason i haven't tested the secondary hypothesis yet is time.

Also, however, like i say, i've already matched the gain to the asymmetric inertial interaction; the gain is already there prior to the 'coasting whist gravitating phase'.

The 'coasting while gravitating phase' is simply a consequence of the way the target relative speed control works - if the following conditions are true:

• bob's x-position is negative of x,y origin

• ..its y-position is also negative..

• ..and the velocity of the rotor minus that of the bob is less than the selected TRS

If all three are true then torque is applied at a constant rate, multiplied up by the wheel velocity; thus the applied torque increases with RPM, such that the TRS is always reached regardless of RPM.

I didn't bother fine-tuning it however, so it over-compensates for RPM, advancing the spin-up phase.. the whole inspiration here was that the energy required to cause a given TRS is not time-dependent, thus the initial sim from post #1 could be remedied by simply raising the applied torque as a function of RPM. The results were immediately OU, and the thread topic is basically thus resolved; you decouple per-cycle momentum yields from RPM by increasing the torque to raise more momentum per cycle in less time, duh. Since then i've ridden motorcycles in circles for around 2,000 miles, and in the few hours a day i have free, added a few more pages of junk in addendum.. just filling in the details, connecting the last dots and deflecting the predictable salvos of poison arrows from the likes of yourself and Ecc1..

..but point is, the secondary hypothesis thus seems redundant - since the gain's already wrapped as a function of the gravity-assisted asymmetric inertial interaction. There's a 1:1 correlation at every step, from the first frame the motor's activated at 9 o' clock, to the first frame the TRS is reached - at that instant, the 0.74 J or whatever it is - the net of KE plus heat - is already there.

If you look at the speed / momentum plots, where the gap opens up between the two traces, that 0.74 J gain is maintained throughout - it's still 0.74 J when the bob reaches 6 o' clock BDC, and the brake activates... no more gain was admitted during this phase.


Finally, ask yourself, what would happen if, instead of coasting-while-gravitating, we applied positive torque to the motor; actually cause an acceleration of the rotor relative to the falling weight?

I'm fairly certain this is a type of interaction i've modelled in detail already (likely more than once) as i'm certain that the KE gain (which will be 'OU' wrt T*a) is only ever equal to the output GPE.


If there's interest in it, i'll consider simming the secondary hypothesis as described (or anyone else is welcome to try), but it's not an immediate priority with the limited time i have ATM..

[justsomeone]

Math does not prove that an overballanced wheel will not work. Math can and does prove that the known designs don't work but math WILL confirm a working design. Maybe ME will be the first to do so. I just need to submit the design to him. Lol

[WaltzCee]

In WM2D, is it possible with scripts to turn the motor off at a certain point within a certain
range while holding the weight by turning a rod on as Jonathan suggested so many years
ago?

Latch it that way.

[MrVibrating]

..so i ran the secondary hypothesis anyway - me kebab's now cold and the Haggen Daz will be slush, hope you're satisfied - and got a positive result after all:



Output GPE = 9.80813 J

Input T*a = 21.82119 J

Total input energy = 31.62932 J

RotKE rise: 103.77826 - 50 = 53.77826 J

53.77826 / 31.62932 = 1.7x unity

Note that the input torque wasn't zero (it'll be relative to the MoI of the wheel vs the net acceleration), but it's 'pseudo-static' regardless (velocity-agnostic); the motor T*a doesn't 'know' or care that its whole FoR is accelerating..

..so the prediction is, beginning with a higher preset RPM will yield even more gain from the same GPE output..

Incidentally this test occurred to me whilst at work last week - just hadn't got round to trying it yet.. seriously need a week off..

So we have two OU interactions in one.. it's doubly OU, and this second route's even easier..

To celebrate this most auspicious of moments, i will now take leave to feast upon microwaved kebab, and melted ice cream. And cider. Bet you anything that's OU too..


ETA: ..eek just noticed, should've included the speed of the hub, too - just for handy cross-reference. Whatevs, it's a quick'n'dirty sim..