Robinhood46 wrote:There are many forces sourrounding a moving mass, time will allow some of these forces to have an effect on the moving mass, but time itself will not.
Does this not imply that my simple explaination is wrong, because, the KE of one closed circuit needs to be brought forward in time with regard the time frame of the other closed circuit?
Therefore;
Two closed circuits are rotating around the same axis.
They both respect the laws of physics.
One is trying to accelerate away from the other and in doing so it causes the other to accelerate.
Switching the energy from one circuits time frame to the other, sounds good to me.
Well it's 'one circuit' - EMGAT; everything's rotating together, in the same rotating frame of reference, but it's an
open system because the input and output workloads are in different FoR's - and
increasingly so as RPM's build..
This can easily be understood by first considering any conventional kind of motor, which, due to N3, requires torque to be applied against some fixed external body - a 'stator' - and as the the 'rotor' gains speed
relative to the stator / earth, the input torque required to maintain a given acceleration has to increase by the square of the elapsed angle... thus causing input PE / work done to perfectly track output KE.
In short, PE:KE symmetry is being enforced by the fact that both reside in the same - ground - FoR; the rotor is being accelerated - ie. work is being done - relative
to the ground, and likewise, the resulting rotational KE is
also, almost by definition, relative to the ground (it'd be of dubious value otherwise).
So both the input / PE workload, and the resulting output KE, are in the same, terrestrial, frame of reference - and so we're measuring 'elapsed angle' in the PE term (torque * angle) along with 'velocity' in the KE term, as relative to our static ground FoR, and
this is the principle cause of energy unity.
The system is 'closed' due to the ubiquity and immutability of N3 - it's one big
inertial system of interacting inertias, in which the net system momentum
never wavers.
And as for motors, so for all other types of machinery..
For just about
any system you can envisage, whatever forms the 'input' and 'output' workloads, there's a direct causal sequence of collisions / inertial interactions between their moving masses that's conserving the net system momentum.
Thus this foundational condition that the net system momentum always remains constant (if not a flat 'zero') - ie. N1 - emerges from every discrete interaction in the causal sequence of input and output workloads individually respecting N3.
And so if we
break that causal chain of collisions interconnecting all actions within our closed system, it'll effectively become
opened - its net momentum is going to change over time..
If its net mass is constant but net system momentum is changing, then net velocity is changing (because 'momentum' = mV).
However
relative accelerations within that accelerating system are now decoupled from their KE value in the ground (ie. static) FoR - so for instance accelerating 1 kg from
relative 'stationary' to relative 1 m/s still only costs ½ J, per the standard KE equation, yet the actual velocity change - and thus energy / KE value - in the static FoR is now a function of the accelerating system's velocity, either adding or subtracting from it.
This is why a recoil-less water pistol coasting on a rollerskate is OU - 'recoil' ensures that the internal velocities resulting from any inertial interaction remain energy-symmetrical from any other FoR - so a static observer would usually see the rollerskate decelerate in response to squirting the water forwards, reducing the jet's absolute velocity accordingly; and
this is what's causing the work done by the trigger / pump to be equal to the KE of the water jet (minus losses of course).. and likewise, the cause of OU when that recoil is omitted.
So an OU wheel must gain statorless momentum, to have any chance of keeping its cost of production
relative, rather than absolute - the EMGAT principle.
Inertial isolation.
It's own inner momentum must come into being,
as from within; it cannot be torqued up conventionally, applying momentum externally, as from
without, to paraphrase B. - that would once again be hard-coupling the I/O FoR's, closing the system.
See how it works? The game we wanna be playing it "motion's relative, therefore velocity's relative, therefore PE and KE are relative to whatever respective inertial FoR" - usually, that's the same frame, because N3 / N1, but gravitating inertial interactions effectively circumvent N3 & N1 (actually playing 'em against one another), per kiiking or classic over-balance, where gaining statorless angular momentum from gravity and time is seen to be trivial; thus the only outstanding hurdle is to fully
capitalise on the statorless condition / EMGAT and fix the bleedin' input energy cost of accumulating momentum to its
internal, relative speed metric, rather than the external 'ground' reference of 'zero' velocity, in which we'll be harnessing the resulting KE.
I hesitated from impulsively dubbing it "KE
gain" there, as
it isn't, really - true OU
can only be an input work / PE
discount - its value simply being inflated by the 'velocity' component of the inertially-isolated system's net momentum rise.
Because KE is a function of velocity relative to the ground FoR, any system such as a wheel can only ever have precisely the
right amount of KE for its given inertia and speed. Any notion of 'excess KE' a misnomer..
Quite simply, accelerating 1 kg to 1 m/s is half a Joule of work. We only ever pay the 'relative' cost - the 'force' and 'displacement' components oblivious to the rising net system velocity, and thus the
absolute KE value in the lab FoR.. so if the system's already at a steady 1 m/s and holds it, that internal 1 m/s asymmetric inertial interaction has accelerated 1 kg from half a Joule up to 2 J, yet by only performing half a Joule of work.
If the system were at, say, 10 m/s then the absolute acceleration to 11 m/s would be a KE rise of 10.5 J, yet again, from only 0.5 J of work done. The bigger the N1 break / velocity divergence, the greater the OU efficiency, because input energy is summing linearly with elapsed cycles / rising system RPM, whilst KE is
squaring per
½mV². Thus net input energy plots as a straight-line diagonal, whilst net output energy follows the
V² exponent, inevitably intersecting the former and pulling up ballistically. All energy under the front of the curve intersection is loss, and everything behind it, gain.
No riddles from me: accelerate a 1 kg system to 10 m/s in ten discrete 1 m/s accelerations with a relative internal cost of ½ J each, and you've spent a net input of 5 J, yet for 50 J of resulting KE.
We don't make energy, FWIW -
inertia does; it's what constitutes the stopping power of a KE, its work potential. The energy gain is paid for in its currency of withdrawal - the energy 'source' being whatever constitutes 'inertia' (0.2% the Higgs, the rest being relativistic mass of the proton's component quarks), and the momentum gain's obviously from gravity and time.
The task is to get the universe to 'create energy', by exactly the same terms it usually does. Just shifting the goalposts, fixing the clocks, a little bait'n'switch..
a logic trap for nature..
