Decoupling Per-Cycle Momemtum Yields From RPM

[MrVibrating]

..staring at that first sim a while, on 2nd thoughts, it'll probably pan out the same - pumping in more KE whilst conserving or possibly even losing momentum..

..all depends whether or not 'momentum in' = 'momentum out', and then, if there IS a net gain, how much energy it costs..

Will give it a shot tomorrow. Too frazzled tonight..

[Johndoe2]

In my experience “easier� ((not more complex) but Both answers always leads to dead ends. To dead ends))
What we are all looking for is a simple And efficient solution. Imo
I also believe some of besslers statements to not be true because of wither an lack of understanding of (Einsteins principles since they were not conceived yet. Specifically E=mc^2 or his theory of relativity.

[MrVibrating]

Right, looking at the 360°-pendulum/stator rig, it starts out raising 2 rad/s relative per cycle, then as RPM's build it drops to 1.9, then 1.8.. and keeps on falling.

The modification i was proposing would instead set a target relative speed - so let's say 3 rad/s - and spread that spin-up over multiple drops of the pendulum, as many as required, before hitting the brakes to end each spin-up cycle.. so, freeing the dependence of the period of the spin-up cycles from that of the individual GPE cycles.

In sober daylight tho it doesn't quite pan out so simply.. you can project what will happen without having to sim it..

..if it can only initially raise 2 rad/s per drop, but the target's 3, then the first motor cycle's gonna be spread over two GPE cycles, gaining 2 rad/s from the first, but then we only want another 1 rad/s from the second..

..this means it'll be hitting the brakes before the stator reaches 6 o' clock BDC - because if we wait till then the relative speed will have risen to 4 rad/s, overshooting the target.. so, we'll be locking them together while the pendulum's only halfway down..

..thus the second half of that second cycle's going to be applying OB torque directly to the balanced rotor, which is not how we want our momentum to increase..


Plus there's a second problem here, which is that any set target speed could now be reached in one of two ways - by accelerating the rotor, as intended... or else, via deceleration of the pendulum as it rises whilst unlocked from the rotor!

So if we get 2 rad/s relative from the first drop cycle, but then don't engage the brake at BDC, as the pendulum rises back up it's decelerated by gravity, so the relative speed is now increasing.. and we'll reach the 3 rad/s target whilst the weight's still rising, the brake will engage locking them together and we'll thus be losing momentum from the rotor back to gravity for the rest of the lift.


In short, the whole point of decoupling motor spin-up cycles from the GPE cycles is to regulate the momentum yield in spite of rising RPM, but a single 360° pendulum-stator is incompatible with this aim, since without radial translations to cause over-balance / under-balance, it'll inevitably be shedding momentum back to gravity as it rises.

Radial lifts on the other hand repay much less momentum to gravity - because the system's rotating, there's still some angular lift happening, which is still bleeding momentum back to gravity.. but the radial portion of the lift obviously causes a gain of momentum from gravity, due to the resulting overbalance. It doesn't pay any momentum back to gravity.

So radial lifting basically means an input of momentum from gravity, whereas angular lifting means outputting momentum back to gravity.


Thus, 360° pendulum/stators are inherently suboptimal for mechanical OU. The proposed asynchronous operation would've been chaotic, impossible to keep track of what momentum had come from where as regards collisions versus direct gravitation, and likely precluding much if any net momentum gain at all..

Powered OB is obviously the way forwards. Transform gravity's constant linear acceleration into a constant angular one, and use it as a 'stator' for a motor to spin up a second rotor. Thus the motor is essentially in the free-fall reference frame, and the period of its spin-up cycles is neatly decoupled from that of the GPE cycles.

So now i need to experiment with OB systems, specifically, looking at how multiplying-up the number of mechanisms smooths out the system's angular acceleration curve.

We already know momentum yields drop off with rising RPM, so the acceleration curve will likely reflect this, however we don't need a high speed range, so much as a smooth torque curve.

It might even be practical to vary the radial lift speeds relative to RPM, to effect a linear section of acceleration across a given RPM..

..obviously, if we could engineer a constant OB torque of say 9.81 N-m across say a 10 RPM speed range, we could sub-divide that into an arbitrary number of motor spin-up-and-brake cycles, with a target relative velocity that could be arbitrarily low.. thus perfectly cancelling all counter-torque from the motor over very many , very small accelerate & brake cycles.. we only need five for OU, remember..

Might initially skip the 'no CF' trick, just using basic radial translations as a function of angle, since that's the quickest way to get data. If the CF workload ends up enforcing unity we can always retry it without.

[MrVibrating]

...since i forgot to attach it to the first post, here is that sim anyway if anyone wants to play with it..

[silent]

.

[MrVibrating]

In my experience “easier� ((not more complex) but Both answers always leads to dead ends. To dead ends))
What we are all looking for is a simple And efficient solution. Imo
I also believe some of besslers statements to not be true because of wither an lack of understanding of (Einsteins principles since they were not conceived yet. Specifically E=mc^2 or his theory of relativity.

Until his encrypted stuff's decoded, we're left to guess how much he really grasped of the exploit. Some things are more certain tho - for instance his insistence that "in a true PMM everything's gotta go around together - no stators"; implies he understood the nature of CoM and N3, and its relationship to work / energy / F*d.

In other words, that he'd solved the vis viva dispute prior to any of his more-illustrious contemporaries.

Yet, if an understanding of CoM and N3 was essential to success, and given all the time he had to contemplate these issues after succeeding, then he must've understood that he was altering the resting momentum state of the net system..

Maybe he smashed the Weissenstein wheel out of guilt - and fear of possible suspicions / recriminations - following the devastations of the 1717 great storm, coincident with the demonstration? The accusations leveled at 's Gravesande a pretext to allay further revelations?

Or maybe he'd reasoned that destroying the wheel would somehow also nullify the momentum changes it had caused - that if they only existed in relation to the wheel, eliminating it would restore the celestial equilibria..

Or mebe he couldn't care less about environmental fallout and was just para everyone was out to stiff him.

Who knows.. but that would be a lot of naivete for a mind that's already solved the relationship between CoM, N3 and I/O energy unity.


As regards simplicity, the thermodynamic principles of OU are of course conceptually straightforwards; exploiting gravity to skew the distributions of momentum resulting from a cyclic inertial interaction. In a nutshell, sinking counter-torque or counter-momentum to gravity and accumulating the resulting non-zero sum over successive cycles is an inherently-OU process, constantly resetting the relative value of V in the KE=½mv² equation, even while its absolute value keeps rising.

Motion's relative, so speed's relative, and thus so is KE. Relative to what? CoM. What causes CoM? N3. So to make KE we gotta break N3.

Gravity's an ambient acceleration - a constant time rate of change of velocity - and invariant of mass (per Galileo's leaning tower demo), and mass times velocity is momentum - this conserved product - and since gravity acts upon masses, it is effectively, from the mechanical, classical perspective at least, an ambient time-rate-of-change of momentum.

Thus it follows that the 'momentum in' versus 'momentum out' for a closed-loop GPE cycle is a function of the relative timeframes / periods of the respective 'up' vs 'down' legs of the cycle. If those timeframes are asymmetric, then the resulting momentum balance is non-zero; a net loss or gain.

In either case, this change in net system momentum is 'reactionless' - it doesn't apply counter-torque at the axis.

And this is what OB torque does; it gains momentum because of the relative time-spent in the 'gravitating' condition when descending in the angular plane, versus when rising in the radial plane.

Thus we get to reap the rewards of an effective asymmetric inertial interaction with gravity - in spite of N3, mass constancy and the speed of light etc. that would normally prevent such an outcome.

In principle, we only need to accumulate that momentum rise over successive cycles to begin 'transposing' the resulting KE value of our input F*d workload, right up the v² multiplier..

So, conceptually, it's meat and potatoes. That's the 'irreducible nucleus' of mechanical over-unity. It doesn't get any simpler, that's its maximally-simple, minimally-complex operating principles.

A friggin' mechanism that actually accomplishes it however is another thing entirely.. and this is where things necessarily have to get more elaborate. If it was so easy to stumble across, the ancients would've had it..

When i need to use a formula or equation for something, i start out by writing it in plain english as a logical process or function, and then reformulating the words into their respective variables and parameters - building up the maths that follow the explicit instructions.

Designing an OU mechanism that "does what the maths do" is the same kinda task - abstracting one 'format of information' into another. The bottom line is that KE=½mv² sets the energy cost of 1 L or 1 P of momentum (angular or linear) at a minimum of 0.5 J per kg. If a minimal 'inertial interaction' requires two such 'kilograms' to apply a force between, then we're looking at a minimum outlay of 1 J per 2 kg per 0.5 m/s of net system acceleration per cycle.

At that rate, after 4 cycles we'll have spent 4 J, and will have 2 kg moving at 2 m/s, hence, per KE=½mv², we'll have 4 J of net KE, and so have achieved unity.

A fifth such cycle will again cost 1 J, and accelerate the 2 kg by another 0.5 m/s, at which point we'll have spent 5 * 1 J = 5 J, but we'll have - in terms of absolute net KE=½mv² - ½ * 2 kg * 2.5 m/s² = 6.25 J; so 125% of unity.

So that's as conceptually simple as it gets, and this is what the Toys page represents.

That is the 'secret mechanism'.

If we were talking about the 'secrets of internal combustion', that'd be your basic Otto cycle.

How you actually go about designing the engine to impose the cycle, is an engineering challenge, rather than one of fundamental physics - we know this if only due to Bessler's prior success. And he said himself that he'd implemented it in a variety of different ways. Internal combustion's an inherently-simple concept, yet for most of the last century we've been reliant on cam chains or even just belts that basically 'play chicken' with valves and pistons.. and that's before you even get to variable-timings etc. Just simming cams and tappet valve-trains in WM would be a nightmare - it hates dragging friction and constantly having to recalculate overlap errors..

Bessler tells us it'd take him 6 months to build one. He states that one that turned very slowly but with great torque would be possible to build, but even more time-consuming.

He also says however that it can be so simple as to be repairable whilst running..

So we have to expect a minimum level of mechanical complexity... which is all i'm ever looking for anyway.

I think the current prospect, of 'using an OB wheel as a 'stator', for to spin-up some other rotor which can then be collided back with it, type-stuff' is about as elegant an interpretation of the maths as is physically possible.


The 'chicken run' is likewise a physically-optimal implementation of the maths - albeit, with gravity off and applying a notional N3 break - it could be simplified further by using a single co-axial second rotor instead of a pair of orbiting ones, but aside from that it's already pared right down to the bone, with only micrograms of flab..

Theoretically, it doesn't get simpler than "buying cheap momentum". That's it. That's the exploit. Buying it for less energy than it's worth.

Designing a minimal mechanism that actually accomplishes it is what i've been wrestling with for the last few years..

[Johndoe2]

Excellent work and spot on.

[MrVibrating]

I do think the OOB wheel is possible. Bessler kind of alludes to it right off the bat with MT1 and the dotted line. Remember he found it where others had looked. Many of his diagrams were where others had NOT looked.

Bessler used a LOT of double-meaning in his clues. He also was really good at taking multiple mechanisms and condensing it down into one mechanism that accomplished the tasks of those he wanted to condense down from. I also think when he did this, he used allusions to the original mechanisms instead of the final design. There is a certain "chain" of thought that he leads you on when going through the MTs. I'm really glad I did an in-depth study of the MTs from the original scans from John Collins. The redone ones are nice, but they leave out some critical parts that come probably from the drawer not fully understanding how the original mechanisms were supposed to work.

I suspect OOB and inertia worked together to propel this wheel and nothing more.

But what do I know?

silent

What we know, mate - with certainty - are the implicit conditions that Bessler's success must've depended upon; if a given distribution of inertia * velocity only has so much KE and we're not allowed to re-write the KE formula to assign it any more, then there must be some way to buy it on the cheap, within the constraints of the KE formula.

He only ever displayed vertical wheels, and only OB could explain the static torque his one-way wheels exhibited.

So gravity-assisted asymmetric inertial interactions are squarely in the frame. They do the job, fit all the evidence consistently..

..it's only really 'daunting' in a layman-physicist kinda way - all we're using are the standard basic equations of motion - zero innovation here - so it's just mass, velocity, momentum and KE, force * displacement, friction and gravity. Finite permutations... compared to the LENR stuff, this is low-hanging fruit.. even if it blows everything else out of the water..

As was ever the case (ie. the Manhattan project) - the biggest secret is simply knowing it's possible...


Armed with that certainty, we can pretty much bypass Bessler entirely and deduce the solution from first principles.. only concerned with the broadest general consistencies with any particular details of his claim.. ie., "it resembled a gravity wheel" is enough of a head-start.. "it made banging noises" ticks another major box, as does "no stator" and "static torque", etc. etc.

Bessler would've bought the onesie for a laptop running WM... we've got no excuse.

Plus, as John gets at above, we might find upon fully decoding hidden messages that they relate concepts in arcane and idiosyncratic ways that are in fact less helpful than the established conventional terms for momentum and KE etc. - when i say he may have ninja'd everyone else in solving the momentum / energy dichotomy, that doesn't mean he'd neatly divided them in terms we'd recognise today (ie. as m*v and ½mv²); they could be reduced to metaphors or graphical representations such as the two hammer toys, or whatever...

Whereas if we simply rely on the advantages of refined, modern physics, it takes most of that guesswork away. We can focus on core fundamentals like "gaining momentum without a stator", and then "doing it for cheap".

Code-breaking boffins and native Germans will be all over this when we're done, let them work out the ciphers and decryption... likewise, improved or alternate translations.. but we don't need either, and it's all energy that could be better spent following the 'implicit physics' end of the trail.. simply reverse-engineering it armed only with basic modern mechanics plus the foreknowledge such a solution's possible.

[charly2]

And this is what OB torque does; it gains momentum because of the relative time-spent in the 'gravitating' condition when descending in the angular plane, versus when rising in the radial plane.

You got it MrV, the bang noise were the weights sliding down outward, gaining speed / angular momentum (mass with a big radius).
Then, following an involute (the betray word) path return near the axle, reducing the radius gradually, thus accelerating by the law of conservation of angular moment. In little less than one revolution the weight must be ready to slide down again under gravity. Two weights, one agaist the other nulify gravity wile they "gravitate" to the center. So, the imbalance is while the weight is decoupled and "falling" by gravity. And that will limit the maximum speed too.
A stator is a must, it would not be a hanging thing,just a rotating reference from the wheel perspective.

[Georg Künstler]

Hi Charly2,
sorry, he is still Not there, but close.
He is using a Motor as the driver to gain additional momentum and Energy.
The version, which he is creating is more powerful than Bessler old wheel.
What still is missing is the function drive the driver.
The power output is dependig on the rotating speed.
When he has accomplished his way, he Can try to solve Besslers way, but that is an other class. Purly gravitational Force to power the wheel needs to find a way of different accelerations, left and right in the wheel.

[charly2]

I am aware MrV mechanical application is different, there are many, but the concept is what will lead to a workable o or unworkable device.
The no return point is when you find the concept and stick to it because you know you are there. The rest is up to your imagiation.

[John Lyndsay]

I have found a couple of ways to accelerate and give energy to a rotating sideways wheel no matter what the rpm (50,000 rpm, no problem!), because it uses brief downward acceleration from imbalanced horizontal pivots. You may think this is fairly easy to find, Not Really! Everything always wants to match up, no matter what you are attempting. In this case, acceleration creates acceleration forever.

[MrVibrating]

@ John

The techniques you mention may well be worth following up on as 'effective N3 breaks', if that's what they are. To be clear tho, the requirement for OU is to be able to apply a fixed amount of momentum to a wheel per cycle - despite the fact that its speed is increasing every cycle - for a fixed amount of energy.

So, it's the energy cost of momentum that has to be stabilised across a range of speed, in order to reach OU efficiencies.

The technique i'm using is to gain momentum from gravity, rather than by applying torque via a stator. Torque applied via a stator produces momentum that gets more expensive the faster you go, whereas a momentum source that doesn't rely on a stator, likewise doesn't suffer the complications of increasing wheel speed relative to that stator; hence, momentum-from-gravity is inherently speed-invariant; there's no inherent reason for it to get more expensive with speed.

However using an OB wheel alone, it does get more expensive with speed regardless, because per-cycle momentum yield decreases with RPM.. so the same amount of input energy / work buys ever-less momentum per cycle, the faster RPM's get..

Which brings us to my current attempt at a solution - decoupling the period of the 'inertial interactions' (the accelerate-and-brake cycles) - from the period of the 'GPE interactions' as a function of RPM.

acceleration creates acceleration forever

Well, yes - gravity is not speed-dependent; there's no such thing as 'terminal velocity' in vacuum, so no matter what your current speed, gravity's acceleration is constant, 9.80665 m/s² at mean sea level. That is, a 'falling' body undergoes the same acceleration per unit time, irrespective of its velocity.

And to be absolutely clear - this is a property of the gravity field itself.

However, as per the thread topic, the amount of space traversed per unit of acceleration is a function of speed.. that is, because gravity is time-constant, but RPM is increasing, the weights would have to fall ever-further per cycle to maintain a consistent momentum yield per cycle. Obviously we can't have our wheel burrowing into the earth to gain energy.. yet if the value of 'height' has to remain constant per cycle, then higher-RPM's mean less 'soak time' gravitating and thus gaining momentum each cycle..

So it's a nuanced issue - the problem ain't gaining torque or momentum at speed (any speed!), but rather, maintaining constancy of the input energy cost of momentum, in spite of rising RPM. This is the singular condition that must be met to achieve mechanical OU.


I hope everyone fully understands that i am not trying to generate energy from gravity, which is of course inherently impossible. GPE = G*M*H, none of those things are time-dependent and closed-loop trajectories thru static fields yield zero net energy.

So, producing energy from an OB wheel is absolutely, categorically not what i'm trying to do..

Instead, i'm collecting momentum, from gravity, at cost.

It's just that, the 'cost' starts out as a 75% loss on the first cycle, rising to just a 50% loss on the second cycle, then a 25% loss on the third... before making unity at the fourth. And then, 125% of unity at the fifth, 150% at the sixth, 175% @ 7th and so on and so forth.

This 25% per-cycle efficiency accumulator is the direct consequence of paying a constant energy cost of momentum, despite rising RPM; which in turn means defeating the usual outcomes of Newton's 3rd law.

An 'effective' N3 break does not necessarily mean you've defeated - or even tackled - mass constancy (the fundamental reason for N3).. more likely (as in this case) that you've circumvented any such need in the first place. There really are no true 'N3 breaks' possible - mechanically or electromagnetically - but that doesn't mean we can't find ways of achieving the same net outcomes by other means.. hence, 'effective' N3 breaks, such as 'buying momentum from gravity' / 'sinking counter-torque to gravity' or what-have-you..

[MrVibrating]

Here's velocity over time for that single mech:



..nice and linear, if a little lumpy. Adding more mechs should smooth it out..

Once OB torque's constant, equal 'counter-torque' can be applied via a motor, to spin up a second, balanced rotor.

This balanced rotor will have the same MoI as the OB rotor.

Thus, when spinning up the balanced rotor, the motor's counter-torque will prevent the OB wheel from further accelerating under gravity, holding its RPM constant for the duration of the rotor spin-up phase.

Upon reaching the target relative speed, the motor will deactivate, and the brake will engage, now decelerating the balanced rotor, whilst accelerating the OB wheel / net system.

The only way we can lose is if input GPE whilst the OB wheel's not accelerating is equal to the 'OU performance' of the motor's torque * angle..

IE. we can already see that the latter is going to be pegged at ½ J / kg-m²-rad/s, so the motor's going to appear massively over-unity, in terms of the resulting KE value of its accelerations..

..however that value has to be greater than the value of lifted GPE that didn't get converted to KE on the OB system.. if you follow my drift.

IOW, maybe input GPE will be equal to the KE gains.. or maybe not..

..but that's why we gotta check these things..

I seriously think we're in with a chance, here - the above plot establishes that we can always add another 1 rad/s relative speed, no matter how high net RPM's get... and it'll always cost ½ J. Precisely 0.5 J per kg-m²-rad/s.

So, half a Joule of torque-times-angle could translate to 2 J or 50 J of rotational KE, depending only on the system RPM at the time. KE squares with velocity, remember.

Whereas, GPE scales linearly - doubling speed doubles the number of GPE interactions, not quadrupling them.. see what i mean?

So the input-energy cost of sustaining the 'reactionless' motor acceleration - in terms of GPE - appears to be decoupled from its resulting rotational KE value.

Or else, i'm talking complete shite.. LOL

Seriously, how could input GPE be equal to the 'OU performance' of the motor, at any RPM? Obviously it has to increase with RPM.. i just cannot see it following the same magnitudes, though..

To frame it more tangibly, go back to the 'chicken run' and suppose that the blood sacrifice is replaced with this OB wheel (because.. that is the only difference) - just look at that efficiency rise; is all of that going to be accounted for by the increase in GPE cycles with RPM? See what i mean? It's gotta be substantially OU, right..?

We'll see, give it a week or so..

[MrVibrating]

LOL, just for fun - i stuck a torque meter on that OB wheel..

..unsurprisingly, it reads a constant zero.


So i tried sticking one on the axis / pin joint instead..

.obviously, same result.

OB torque is kewl.

Momentum... from gravity.


And not merely in the trivial sense of raising and dropping a weight - that only changes momentum equal to the height risen or fallen, equal in each direction, and all mutually cancelling for each discrete leg of the cycle; because that momentum change is a function of a closed-loop height / distance, the 'zero momentum frame' remains stationary, and we can't propel Earth thru space using cyclic GPE interactions.. no way to cyclically accumulate linear momentum in the vertical plane..

Except, that symmetry of 'up' versus 'down' momentum is not actually spatial at all, but temporal - the height times mass times gravity determines the time spent gravitating, and thus 'soak time' exchanging momentum with gravity..

..the spatial symmetry - and thus, stasis over time of the zero momentum frame - was only ever an incidental side-effect of that underlying time symmetry...

And the only thing enforcing it..?


Yup: Mr Newton's imperviable 3rd postulate.


Any attempts to mess with the zero-momentum frame between a weight and Earth are thwarted by N3 - trying to interfere with the 'time-spent-gravitating' for the weight by applying an upwards force would mean applying equal counter-momentum in the downwards direction..

But inertial torques - the 'ice skater effect' - along with kiiking and OB torques, don't apply instantaneous counter-forces or counter-momenta. So they can manipulate 'soak times' under gravitation, and thus, the amount of momentum exchanged that would normally correspond to a given change in height..


..so we can make 'up' vs 'down' momenta, to and from gravity, unequal... this is what a 360° kiiker is doing.. and also, an OB wheel.

Gaining angular momentum, without any application of torque at all, or thus counter-torque / counter-momenta..

Surely, then, the zero-momentum frame must thus likewise be accelerating in direct proportion to the momentum gain?

Crazy eh? You've got all this momentum ping-ponging around the cosmos at all possible scales and in all fundamental fields, and it's just the same conserved momentum that the universe was born with, getting forever-recycled as PE converts to KE and entropy increases, the same net quantity of 'inertia' times 'velocity' throughout time and space..

..until some Estonian comes along and says "here, hold my beer.."


Basically, anywhere in the universe an inertia happens to perform closed loops in a gravity field whilst applying reactionless speed changes, the net momentum of everything everywhere goes up or down just a lil' bit.. and the bottom line is that the 'net momentum of the universe' cannot be fixed and constant (or indeed, a 'net zero'; because if it didn't have a net spin prior to 1712, it does now), but is, rather, 'open' to the confluence of gravity and time.

Having manufactured 'free' KE from divergent values of 'stationary' / '1 rad/s', by having raised reactionless momentum-from-gravity, we then need to tap it, twice over; once, to power itself (ie. the OB system and motor), and then again, to actually harness the thing to do useful work... and it's this final step, of now applying a grounding to earth, and thus a means of direct exchange of momentum - that is essentially, 'shorting' the planet to its own gravity field.

Remember, the planet's gravity well is not like some passive bubble of 'atmosphere', it's a uniform acceleration, an active, time-rate-of-change of momentum.. 'static field' my arse - it's a livewire; a powered OB wheel is in perpetual freefall, gaining momentum forever, without closing the distance between itself and the source, nor applying counter-torque to it. The net system momentum is rising, all the time a Bessler wheel is under load. The momentum being bled back to earth is composed of the same inertia and velocity comprising the KE being harvested.

To put it another way, it's not that Bessler's wheels had 'no stator' - more accurately, the wheels were the 'stators' for the internal reactionless accelerations manifesting the KE gains, and attaching loads to those 'stators' to drive the water-screw or stampers or raise the box of bricks etc. was directly transmitting momentum to earth that had not been raised against it.

When a 360° kiiker stops, net momentum in and out all cancel (i think!) - as they would when just swinging / oscillating.

But what about when a powered OB wheel (ie. running at unity) is used to drive an external load? The 'load' could just be shite bearings / friction.. a 'torque meter' on the load is gonna show actual torque transmitted.. but the torque meters on the axis and wheel are still gonna read 'zero'...

Not much of a cosmologist but pretty sure 'variable net momentum from gravity' isn't much of a factor in current models.. mebe 'dark' effects could be related..? Shades of MOND..

Think of the potential chaos wrought on GPS, basic astronavigation and timekeeping; that's long before you get to worst-cases (?), but still, lots of Ubers driving erratically, if not a few megaquakes / storm surges, before everyone starts joining the dots..

We can be pretty sure that smashing the wheels afterwards won't help. Furiously pedalling 'em backwards for equal time seems just as likely to worsen things than restore equlibria... yet prior to a working demo we might as well be contemplating the radioactivity of angels on pinheads..