Blood From Stone

[Fletcher]

Well, if the electric motor input is the key to your modified pendulum massive OU you better build a test rig with electronic controls and test it for real. Not too different to what was suggested to CC with a similar 'seemingly' anomalous result from motors.

[MrVibrating]

Let's just look at sim animations in your posts for now. Just to recap. You made some pendulums. They have a motor component. Gravity is ON.

In your first sim, with no radial translation (I'll call it v1), you start the sim with a push (at 9.5 rpm) and it has 4 J's of KE (shows on the meter). The effective pivot (at the motor) is locked till 9 o'cl, then unlocked till 3 o'cl, and locked again. It makes it back to tdc and restores GPE. It has 4 J's of KE again on the Output meter and the starting 9.5 rpm is restored. Zero Sum Game.

In your second sim, with radial translation (by motor), it starts with 4 J's on the meter and 9.5 rpm, and ends with GPE restored and KE of 27.6 J's and 35.5 rpm. There the effective pivot at the motor position follows the above same sequence of locking and unlocking equivalent.

In your third sim, with no radial translation (I'll call it v2), it starts with 4 J's on the meter and 9.5 rpm, and ends with GPE restored and KE of 27.6 J's and 35.5 rpm. Same result as the one above, but there was no radial translation.

N.B. On your v2 the effective pivot is locked till 9 o'cl, then unlocked equivalent until 12 o'cl is reached again.

So you could take the motor out and just have a pin joint that was locked and unlocked for a comparison model. I doubt you would expect it to arrive again at 12 o'cl with 35.5 rpm and 27.6 J's of KE ? Not in your wildest dreams.

So .. the difference in sim Output performance at 12 o'cl for v2 compared to an actual locking and unlocking pivot joint (replacing motor) must be due to the motor input !

Does that reasoning make any sense to you or maybe sound some warning bells ?

Yes, if you'd only read from p. 31 i already tried that - the orbiting rotors begin with 1 rad/s counter-clockwise as they're locked to the orbital axis. Momentum's conserved, so they just continue holding that configuration when the locks are released. Nothing at all happens.

If you then did the rad trans anyway, they'd spin up as you'd expect, gaining KE equal to the work done against CF. They'd be spinning up in the same direction as the orbit, instead of the necessary, opposing direction, tho.

So yes, you're absolutely correct - all available evidence consistently proves that torquing the orbiting rotors against the central rotor is a necessary condition. Please just read the last two pages before the lag gets any bigger?

So your next question is "why is the input integral lower (even zero in some cases) than the KE rise?".. and the answer to that is this MoI magic i keep banging on about..

Momentum's conserved, so instantly halving MoI instantly doubles velocity, and since KE squares with velocity, half the MoI at twice the speed doubles the rot KE.

Get a coffee or whatever and check off the main points from p.31 onwards - for once, it could be worth your while..

I appreciate the necessity of reducing things to familiar concepts, but please... it's not a friggin' pendulum! That would communicate completely the wrong impression to you or anyone else trying to follow.

I'm keeping the neologisms to a minimum and using consistent, exact terms and descriptions, and it's absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with 'harmonic oscillators' or any of that mumbo jumbo - please let's keep everything framed within the objective context!?

[MrVibrating]

Well, if the electric motor input is the key to your modified pendulum massive OU you better build a test rig with electronic controls and test it for real. Not too different to what was suggested to CC with a similar 'seemingly' anomalous result from motors.

They're not 'electric' - it's just torque and angle. The current measurement objectives depend upon achieving certain interactions, so they can be measured - not designing products..

The form of gain is kinetic energy. Mechanical OU. Nothing to do with electronics.

So yes, a motorised rig would work fine, according to all available data, but torque is just torque - Bessler obviously got by with mechanical energy only, and teh interwebz full of claims with all wires and dodgy meters poking out - we can do better than that!

I've devoted a few hours this evening just to compensate for your obstinacy in reading back two pages (now three), with time-consuming and utterly redundant sims... It's now nearly 7 am here and this is not good use of my time or enfeebled grey matter.. don't wanna have to put you on 'ignore'..

[Fletcher]

So sorry to waste your time.

You just don't get it do you ?

Look at your v2 from the previous page. The one you specially made for me at my request to look for trends.

You could build a pendulum of similar dimensions to your test rig and where the motor is replace it with a rigid joint over a pin joint.

Then regulate when the rigid joint is active so it duplicates v2 in its action (but just by timed lock and unlock of the rigid joint) i.e. no motors involved or radial translations required. Give the whole thing a push like yours got etc.

No way it would start with 4 J's and 9.5 rpm and end up at tdc again with 35.5 rpm and 27.6 J's. Yet your motorised sim does ! Warning Will Robinson !

Feel free to put me on ignore if you have a mind to, I don't want to waste my time either.

Second thoughts I'll prolly save you the trouble mate.

[MrVibrating]

I've already answered that mate, without applying torque, momentum's simply conserved and nothing at all happens. It's a 'gain interaction'. No interaction, no gain.

The question is why is the gain happening!!!

Why is the torque * angle workload over-unity?

Yes "Danger Will Robinson"!

Yes, mistakes give OU results!

So, how is torque * angle a mistake!!!??? How does one muff that up? It's motor torque on one axis, and motor angle on the other..?

Because, there's another phenomenon that also causes OU results, isn't there..?

One that actually appears fully consistent with all the other evidence..

Likewise, how can the net CF work profile be zero? If you've changed to a lower MoI / higher RKE, then you must've done equal work against CF force, right?

So either torque * angle and force * distance are suddenly, inexplicably 'wrong' - ie. the work/energy equivalence principle has somehow failed - or else...

Here's the answers again from page 31:





If all you need do is barge into the last page of a thread, elbows out, glance at the pretty pictures and bingo! you've got it all sussed, we can presumably all look forward to your sage explanations of why the work-energy equivalence principle is now OU..

It's FA to do with pendulums.

It's FA to do with gravity.

The form of input energy - the work done - is torque times angle, and force times displacement.

The form of output energy - the gain - is KE.

All input and output energy is being comprehensively calculated - much of it twice, in parallel. The results from my calcs are perfectly matching WM's internal calcs, with zero deviation. Nothing is getting in or out without being explicitly metered. We can see the gain is being caused by the MoI change.


Enough with the personalised recaps, read the data already provided or don't; if anyone else starts demanding i repeat myself i'll just link back to past posts.

[MrVibrating]

..furthermore, the interaction you had me spend a thankless hour on last night is basically the same interaction from p.33, using a motor instead:



...same synchronisation as here:



..so the gain condition is not merely the internal application of torque, but also dependent upon the containment of counter-torques & isolation of the net system momentum from the outside world.

This is the condition which causes the motor torque to register as zero.

So again, how can the output of:

Code: Select all

constraintforce(20).r

..which is being integrated across the range of:

Code: Select all

Constraint[20].dp.r

..be measuring a value of 'zero'?

The angle range is increasing correctly - there's simply no torque being plotted across it tho..

Yet that exact same meter - untouched - does measure non-zero torque when we combine the interaction with a GPE interaction:



..only now, it's integrating 4.5 J negative work!

Our whole raison d'etre here is to find the mechanical OU we know must exist. I've spent the last few years endlessly labouring how MoI is the only possible CoE wildcard.

It seems like a year's passed since first trying to cancel counter-torque with inertial torque, yet it's only been three months! In that time we've developed from a torque * angle integral that is OU, but-for the equal input CF work integral, to one with a totally flat-line zero trace on both the motor and CF work plots and 200% OU, and now one with a negative 4.5 J plot and 27 J KE gain, at 800% OU.

Ain't pulling any of these figures outa me arse, all the data's there, and yes, i'm totally fallible (see pages 1 to 30 etc.).

The question is, how are F*d and T*a fallible in these results?

Is there an error that is more consistent with the data then the solution already being calculated to one tenth of a microjoule? The gain is precisely equal to the spontaneous change in MoI and the resulting inertial torques and changes in the value of velocity and KE predicated on the conservation of MoI times RPM.

Trying to understand the results from the 'single-mech + GPE' configs outside the context of the initial no-gravity result is a hiding to nowhere. "..so it's basically a pendulum, right? So the gain must be caused by the motor!".. Grrr.. :/

[silent]

.

[MrVibrating]

There's no actual change in GPE though, so resetting that position does no net work against gravity.

So all it does is double the MoI again, halving the rotKE.

If we don't draw the masses into their axial center before locking the axial rotors, then the orbital MoI flips back to its doubled value the instant the axial rotation locks, and with it, our gain instantly disappears back where it came from.

However, if we move the masses into their axial centers before locking the axial rotation, then when it stops, the orbital MoI is still pegged at its lower, halved-value, hence we still have the KE gain..

..so if we then re-extend the MoI back to its initial, doubled, value, we're collecting output orbital CF work in the process...

..so rotKE will again be cut back in half, only now, we also get to harvest the other half - ie. all of the gain - in the form of that CF force times radius.

So in the case of the original config, we start with 8 J, double it for free to 16 J, consolidate that gain with a radial translation, then harvest it into CF PE / sprung PE or whatever. End result: the 8 J rot KE we started with, plus another 8 J of output CF work done / stored PE.

This is obviously a mechanical consideration with regards to closed-looping the cycle - nothing to do with the veracity of the gain principle itself. The current final state is an objective gain in mechanical energy. Getting this far is the hard bit. Employing that energy to perform further work is an engineering challenge, not a physics one..

Don't worry, i'm not gonna allow myself to get sidetracked any more, everyone else can play catch-up in their own time..

[MrVibrating]

Here the 2 J of rotKE from a 2 m radius 1kg mass at 1 rad/s is loaded into a spring:



IOW both its derivation from Hooke's law, and the integral of its torque * angle, is 2 Joules, whether it's loading or unloading; if we didn't pause the sim, it'd bounce right back into 2 J of rotKE, at an MoI of '4' rotating at 1 rad/s..

So in principle all we need do is replace the motor/s with that spring, loaded with that PE..

..then we'll see whether the effect depends upon the constant application of torque throughout the period thru which the gain condition is sustained..

..or else, whether it's sufficient to simply set the counter-rotation in motion, and then let CoM maintain it, and thus the halved MoI / doubled rot KE state..

We should thus instantly see if the output work is more or less than the 2 J we know with certainty was all the PE provided..

Plan.


I'm also eager to try out the new MoI calcs i showed last night - in principle it appears MoI changes greater than factors of two are possible..

[Fletcher]

Carry on Mr V .. it's your thread. It's your time and money as they say.

silent .. what he is showing is a recovery of GPE from start to finish thru 360 degrees of rotation. Even if there is not complete restitution of weights positions at this time. This is what is called a one-shot experiment. It's a helluva good start towards perhaps engineering a continuous rotating OU possibility if true.

Because he is using weights in opposition that are always at the same radius from their local 'pivot', or local center of rotation, they can only move equal distances radially in or out from that local fulcrum. That means the two opposing weights are always weight balanced around that pivot. A bit like having a scissor mech in there except one is not shown.

This is the first step towards a full restitution of positions and continuous rotation scenario, if that is possible to engineer on the fly. Because after the one-shot is stopped at 12 o'cl you could apply a little energy from some external source to move the two weights in opposition back to their original start positions. There would be no cf's or other inconveniences to deal with, just small frictional forces which don't eat much of your alleged profit.

Mr V's one-shot experiment is producing an enormous surplus of KE, for a small initial investment to get it rotating. If true that surplus KE could be used elsewhere as free energy after restoring the weights originating positions.

The one-shot could be built (controlled by whatever means) as a POP of the the sim and Mr V's analysis, before looking for the engineering to fully restore both GPE and weight positions for continuous rotation. IMO.

[Georg Künstler]

MrVibrating wrote:

Employing that energy to perform further work is an engineering challenge, not a physics one..

That are my words more than 10 years ago.
Universities should do their work, they get paid for that.
They should do their homework.
But even if you present them a model, they will disagree.
They will ask for the source of the energy.

I tried several ways already without success,
but that was yesterday, today its a new game.

Maybe my latest construction will convince them.
Purely mechanical.

[MrVibrating]

Now the spring constant's been raised by two orders, so the exchange happens in one thousandth the angle, and period.




First the rotKE is loaded into sprung PE as before, then the sim pauses so we can see this, and then it unpauses and dumps the PE back into KE.

Additionally, a 'ratchet' is now put into effect, allowing the rotor to continue to free-wheel after it's spun back up..

This should now be sufficient to replace the orbiting motor/s.

The expectation is that the counter-torque - here being applied to the 'wall' the spring's mounted to - will instead be applied to the central rotor.

Each orbiting rotor should thus cease rotation, transferring its 4 kg-m²-rad/s of momentum to the orbital axis, conserving the net total, whilst halving the net MoI and so doubling the RPM and rotKE as before.

The resulting KE rise should be greater than the expended PE we know with certainty was all the PE provided..

[MrVibrating]

Carry on Mr V .. it's your thread. It's your time and money as they say.

silent .. what he is showing is a recovery of GPE from start to finish thru 360 degrees of rotation. Even if there is not complete restitution of weights positions at this time. This is what is called a one-shot experiment. It's a helluva good start towards perhaps engineering a continuous rotating OU possibility if true.

Because he is using weights in opposition that are always at the same radius from their local 'pivot', or local center of rotation, they can only move equal distances radially in or out from that local fulcrum. That means the two opposing weights are always weight balanced around that pivot. A bit like having a scissor mech in there except one is not shown.

This is the first step towards a full restitution of positions and continuous rotation scenario, if that is possible to engineer on the fly. Because after the one-shot is stopped at 12 o'cl you could apply a little energy from some external source to move the two weights in opposition back to their original start positions. There would be no cf's or other inconveniences to deal with, just small frictional forces which don't eat much of your alleged profit.

Mr V's one-shot experiment is producing an enormous surplus of KE, for a small initial investment to get it rotating. If true that surplus KE could be used elsewhere as free energy after restoring the weights originating positions.

The one-shot could be built (controlled by whatever means) as a POP of the the sim and Mr V's analysis, before looking for the engineering to fully restore both GPE and weight positions for continuous rotation. IMO.

Thank you, that's a much more reasonable summary!

As you note, re-extending the masses by sliding them back outwards should be GPE-free, but will also be re-doubling the MoI, so we should end up with whatever KE we began with, plus another 100% of it mirrored as radial sprung PE.

I'll try replacing the motors with angular springs first; if that works, then we can try replacing the actuators with radial linear springs too..

[MrVibrating]

eek just noticed the "spring PE" meter above keeps clocking the angle change after the spring's physically removed - rushed it, ignore the error, it's just 2 J in and back out.. you get the drift.

[MrVibrating]

MrVibrating wrote:

Employing that energy to perform further work is an engineering challenge, not a physics one..

That are my words more than 10 years ago.
Universities should do their work, they get paid for that.
They should do their homework.
But even if you present them a model, they will disagree.
They will ask for the source of the energy.

I tried several ways already without success,
but that was yesterday, today its a new game.

Maybe my latest construction will convince them.
Purely mechanical.

Tried crank-calling Imperial College already, head of Physics dept. simply asked whether i wanted to be put thru to 'Condensed Matter', 'Astrophysics' or 'Quantum Systems".. uhh..

To be fair, we're talking about an elephant in the refrigerator..

..a rather small, communal refrigerator that billions of people have been using for three centuries..

..millions have already searched it diligently for elephants. Millions more have railed against the point of even looking - "The fridge is to small!" they say.. "we'd notice tracks from their annual migrations"..

..yet there was a fully-grown African tusker hiding right there in the custard bowl all along..

It's just beyond all credibility, an insult to the intelligence.. today's academia is all-but institutionally incapable of entertaining such a breakthrough..

So it's all down to us, for now. We have to pick up the ball and run with it.

There's always the Royal Society down at Waterloo Place SW1, but even then, there's usually only a caretaker / security guard there - membership activities are mostly online and events-based.. it ain't the 19th century no more and even if i showed up with all maths, sims and a working model, it'd instantly descend into farce..

There's the Institute of Physics on Portland Place W1, but again that's really just an industry advocate NPO, so.. "not really their department"..

I did try crank-emailing a professor of mechanics / classical physics at Kings College, but didn't expect a response and ain't received one..

So for now, we're on our lonesome. Possibly the most powerful beings in the known cosmos right now, who nobody wants to talk to.

But enough daydreaming, let's keep up the momentum.. we're all but unstoppable now!