Blood From Stone

[MrVibrating]

Energy is the currency to do Work ! Input and Output.

The sim will auto-calculate the correct MOI for componentry. MOI is found by experimentation in the real world.

Here is the Energy vs Rotational Degrees Mapping of the Rod sim n.b. the sim gets a small push start or 0.25 J

Note the sudden spikes and dips in the KE's and when (as in degrees) they occur.

If i'm following correctly.. you mean peak energy per cycle is at the beginning of each cycle - therefore it must be lossy?

[MrVibrating]

..the way forwards is already lit, i think - this version of the interaction was conceived after repeatedly running into rising CF work as the only remaining bulwark between full input / output decoupling - the last attempt being the axial-to-orbital momentum scheme...

So what will happen if we simply bang this 23 J worth of AM each cycle (however much / little it may be) into an orbital moment?

Absolute quantities of momentum per cycle will still inevitably drop with RPM, but so long as per-cycle input energy's constant, you'd think that after n cycles there'll have to be a break-even point, and at n+1, OU...

[sleepy]

Ok Mr. V,
So you've solved it. Now we just need to figure out how to go about making an axle that will not interfere with the actuators and will have enough strength to handle the tremendous gyroscopic torque. Then we have to find the actuators. They must be super fast, super strong, ultra programmable, and hyper efficient. If anyone has any sites to search for these actuators, please let us know so we can divide up the grunt work. We will also need a lossless way to harvest the electricity to power the actuators. Sprockets would be one way. But maybe some type of wireless transmission system would be the way to go. Maybe one of Tesla's designs ?

[cloud camper]

Energy is the currency to do Work ! Input and Output.

The sim will auto-calculate the correct MOI for componentry. MOI is found by experimentation in the real world.

Here is the Energy vs Rotational Degrees Mapping of the Rod sim n.b. the sim gets a small push start or 0.25 J

Note the sudden spikes and dips in the KE's and when (as in degrees) they occur.

If i'm following correctly.. you mean peak energy per cycle is at the beginning of each cycle - therefore it must be lossy?

Precisely, Fletcher has shown that the actuators are doing ALL the work at the beginning of the cycle, adding 23 J of external energy each time around.

All we have here is a fancy powered pendulum as the graphs show that the system immediately starts to lose energy after the radial weights reach the center.

No "free" gain is occurring, only frictional losses.

If gravity was adding energy it would show up in the second half of the cycle, after the green weight is lifted and starts to fall, but as anyone can see no energy is being added in the second half of the cycle.

In the first half of the cycle external energy is being added by reducing MOI which then lifts the green weight over the top as increased torque is created.

Then the power shuts off and the increased GPE of the green weight begins to convert to RKE as it falls.

No energy is being created only converted, just like a pendulum.

Still a great physics lesson in energy conservation and conversion from one form to another and a very novel way of adding external power to a rotating system!

[ME]

All we have here is a fancy powered pendulum as the graphs show that the system immediately starts to lose energy after the radial weights reach the center.

When at the center, the actuators can not add energy to the system and the KE+PE of the Green weight is just a constant (a pendulum).

It's usually most interesting when looking at the boundary conditions.
So here's one where the mechanism starts 83.14° degrees ahead, without an initial push.
That angle is as such that actuators provide the difference in GPE =[M·g·(2-2·cos(dθ))≈17.27 J] quite nicely, and just shy of pushing the Green over.
On its way back that amount gets 'recovered'.

Nevertheless, when a mechanism-only-device would 'only' be capable of recreating such pendulum-effect without the rotational-take-off then it's still able to push the Green weight almost a quarter up: A very small percentage of dropping that Green from such height could be used to reset the red-weights, roll to the initial position and power a generator while doing that.
It's perhaps interesting that the acquired new amount of energy peaks at the same value the potential energy is started with. I haven't looked into it up close, but it obviously should happen when the actuator needs to fight centrifugal force the most to maintain radial velocity.
This actuator-programming as used for the animation:

Code: Select all

3-0.5*Body[5].p.x 

Still a great physics lesson in energy conservation and conversion from one form to another and a very novel way of adding external power to a rotating system!

Totally agreed. I applaud mrVibrating for that... and that alone.
I think the most annoying part is shouting "Overunity" when things are clearly in the learning phase and 'under investigation'.

[cloud camper]

Ok Mr. V,
So you've solved it. Now we just need to figure out how to go about making an axle that will not interfere with the actuators and will have enough strength to handle the tremendous gyroscopic torque. Then we have to find the actuators. They must be super fast, super strong, ultra programmable, and hyper efficient. If anyone has any sites to search for these actuators, please let us know so we can divide up the grunt work. We will also need a lossless way to harvest the electricity to power the actuators. Sprockets would be one way. But maybe some type of wireless transmission system would be the way to go. Maybe one of Tesla's designs ?

Sadly there are no hyper efficient actuators or even efficient actuators for that matter.

An actuator is just an electric motor (80% efficient) turning a long screw that drives the load up or down, very similar to the emergency scissors jack on your car.

If you look at any screw thread you will notice that the threads are at some angle lets say 45 degrees to the shaft which means that the applied torque must be converted thru this angle twice before the screw actally penetrates the medium.

This leads to a large loss of efficiency depending on the medium so combined with the drive motor probably in the range of 50%, definitely not what you want in a free energy device.

[ME]

Thanx ME .. it was the only sim I ever built that actually showed OU, legitimately. That is I used Industry Physics formula's for Lift and Drag forces according to different wing profiles on line. I had realised when I mapped the energy consumption of Lift and Drag that there was more than sufficient Lift to overcome system losses including air Drag and it got better and better with some profiles which had to translate to speed/velocity over tdc (which the sim does). What could possibly go wrong ?

Uh oh, that was likely not the finest weekend for everyone around.
But it must have been a truly nice project up until that realization, sorry for your loss.

...yet there may be hope... When those formula's work in a wind-tunnel, then your device should work perfectly there, ey? :-)

Anyways, I think all of us sim users should pitch in and see if we can get to the bottom of Mr V's sim actions.

What will likely happen is that we will all verify unity, and mrV remains in denial.

So somebody has to come up with a reliable way to analyse this energy cost ?

I count at least 5 ways to measure.
1 via the total energy budget, 2 ways via actuator measurements, 2 ways via the motion/position of those red radial weights.
The delta-energy-budget per rotation is the easiest, and can be metered within the simulator.
MrVibrating is already close enough with his Integral for Power over time.

Energy is the currency to do Work ! Input and Output.
The sim will auto-calculate the correct MOI for componentry. MOI is found by experimentation in the real world.
Here is the Energy vs Rotational Degrees Mapping of the Rod sim n.b. the sim gets a small push start or 0.25 J
Note the sudden spikes and dips in the KE's and when (as in degrees) they occur.

If i'm following correctly.. you mean peak energy per cycle is at the beginning of each cycle - therefore it must be lossy?

Precisely, Fletcher has shown that the actuators are doing ALL the work at the beginning of the cycle, adding 23 J of external energy each time around.

Fletcher's graph (using mrV's actuator program) shows abrupt deceleration and acceleration of those radial weights... not nice for several reasons.
Spikes are one. The actuators are started and stopped very abruptly with a force F=m·∆v/∆t, which is not very nice.
We can get rid of those interruptions by smoothing the action of the actuator.

Instead of the latest actuator program, one could try this line to create a smoother transition between length 2 till 4:

Code: Select all

if(body[5].p.x>0,2,max(2, 3+(body[5].p.x^2-body[5].p.y^2)/4))

(body[10] for Fletcher)

or from 2 till 0:

Code: Select all

if(body[5].p.x>0,2,min(2, 1-(body[5].p.x^2-body[5].p.y^2)/4))

(This sometimes pushes things inside-out when the actuator-length becomes zero at the rim, and momentum pushes the preferred direction outwards, so don't use this one)

ETA:
It's interesting such smoothing doesn't seem to affect the frequency (much), only the gain (a bit).

[MrVibrating]

Ok Mr. V,
So you've solved it. Now we just need to figure out how to go about making an axle that will not interfere with the actuators and will have enough strength to handle the tremendous gyroscopic torque. Then we have to find the actuators. They must be super fast, super strong, ultra programmable, and hyper efficient. If anyone has any sites to search for these actuators, please let us know so we can divide up the grunt work. We will also need a lossless way to harvest the electricity to power the actuators. Sprockets would be one way. But maybe some type of wireless transmission system would be the way to go. Maybe one of Tesla's designs ?

You're trying to envisage a physical build of a test rig, that's only designed to measure an interaction.

The purposes of all these rigs is to measure the energies involved in these interactions between inertia and gravity.

If the next round of experiments prove successful, then hopefully we'll be able to reduce the complexity down to something that can be accomplished purely mechanically. To 'distill' a gain config down into a minimally-complex design.

Actual builds of the test rigs are possible - there's nothing non-physical (no zero-mass bodies etc.) required (it would be the controller that was programmed, rather than the solenoids or whatever), but let's wait until conclusive gain's demonstrated first..

Not much further to go, if this weekend's tests work out at intended..

[MrVibrating]

So, quick recap:

The axial-to-orbital rig was scuppered by a rising cost of input work with rising RPM. So the priority objective became finding some kind of workaround for limiting CF work in spite of rising RPM..

..and that's now accomplished! Whereas previously, the MoI extended whilst dropping the weight, and retracted while lifting, now both extension and retraction occur during the drop only. There's no change in MoI at all during the lift.

This gives us a constant per-cycle input energy, irrespective of RPM and net CF. Doesn't matter how strong the CF forces get, per-cycle input energy remains pegged at 23.5 J (or whatever value a given config settles on).

The last axial-to-orbital rig was this one:



..as you can see, the per-cycle input energy increases because the MoI is retracting after peak speed has been reached as the weights pass BDC.

So, logically, all we need to do now is replace that old actuator firing pattern, with the spangly-new speed-agnostic one.

The rest is simply bashic maffs - output energy is orbital RKE, which squares with RPM, whereas input energy is constant whatever the RPM, so we'll have a flat-line evolution of input energy, whilst output RKE ramps up exponentiously.

The mental image to consider is simply a flat horizontal line (input energy), struck thru with a diagonal line (output energy) - at some point, they inevitably intersect (our unity threshold)...

..So, whereas the previous version was forever unable to reach unity, the revised one should, finally, see its efficiency climb from UU, to U, to OU, seamlessly through the course of a standing-start run!

If successful, that's a test rig worth building. But a practical design for mass-deployment will obviously still need further refinements, such as eliminating the need to climb thru the initial loss zone..

Still, given what seems reliable and believable CF data, there doesn't appear to be any further barriers in our way. I mean, what act of God could CoE possibly pull to get out of this one? Game over, surely..?

[MrVibrating]

In-lieu of full inbound and outbound acceleration damping (just a matter of thrashing out the equation, i WILL get around to it), i'm gonna proceed with just using the CF work integral to meter input energy for now.

This eliminates any risk of measuring the errors that were creeping in via the sudden radial accels / decels - these obviously ARE errors, and sudden accelerations neither create nor dissipate energy, all else being equal.

If it shows OU, then accel-damping becomes the next priority, but it's redundant otherwise..

[silent]

.

[MrVibrating]

Hmmm.. does the clutch have to be lossy?

I mean, it's fulfilling the purpose of an 'inelastic collision', insofar as resetting the axial / orbital speed difference each cycle - and if we really were using inelastic collisions for that purpose, then dissipative losses would indeed be part and parcel of that.

But here, we're simply tripping a motor, set to "0" velocity, for a brief pulse at the culmination of each cycle - this equalises the speeds, redistributing the momentum gains... so, is dissipative loss still inevitable / mandatory?

IOW, could the work being done against that motor actually be conserved, instead, somehow?

What if it loaded a spring instead, or something?

What if we just left it as dissipative, but insulate it and recoup the Carnot efficiency?

This would mean most of the energy currently being sacrificed could be kept within the system and recycled..

Completely unnecessary of course, if we're OU anyway... however i may just start metering the dissipated heat energy, to at least provide a fuller picture of the energy balance..

ETA: ...duh... or just run the motor in generating mode, collecting the output energy?

[MrVibrating]

Despite all the nay-saying, I must say your in-depth study has proved to be very enlightening. I understand but a fraction of it, but even if in the end it doesn't pan out, the analysis has been awesome. I'm reminded of the lyrics of a song I like that says, "...but if in the end we should go both our separate ways well I know the lesson I learned here was worth it all." That's the main thing I'm getting is just the learning experience of watching what you're doing.

silent

You're far too kind mate, ta..

FWIW i can't actually see any naysaying, cos if i was i'd be kicking absolute naysaying arse, as they doubtlessly well-know (and presumably delight in taking full advantage of).

Again, out of 110 billion humans so far, only 1 has cracked this old nut - old Orffyreus. And he spent the rest of his days consumed by the naysayers.

Fuck 'em, and their worthless irrelevance! Ain't got the time, energy or interest..

[silent]

.

[cloud camper]

This thread has become a great example of how even educated people can get thoroughly convinced that their conclusions are correct without even a shred of supporting physical evidence.

This is why following the scientific method is so important as it requires those claiming non standard results to pay heed to other informed viewpoints about their work.

Results must be understood and duplicated by others before a non-standard hypothesis can be permitted to move ahead.

Clearly that is not happening in this thread.

What we are witnessing in this case is a complete breakdown in the scientific method as our claimant is not willing to address
even reasonable objections to his claims.

This is not the first time that someone has believed their own conclusions
outweigh the experience and. viewpoints of all others and won't be the last but this example demonstrates why the scientific method was developed in the first place
and needs to be strictly implemented as without it there could be no real agreement of any kind on what constitutes scientific fact.