Decoupling Per-Cycle Momemtum Yields From RPM

[MrVibrating]

OK so now there's a definite goal ahead - practice vectoring asymmetric inertial interactions upwards, after priming to the unity velocity, and thus collecting an instant GPE gain instead of an accumulating KE gain..

[MrVibrating]

I find keeping ideas as simple as possible. It helps in creating a firm foundation.

So I try not to think of forces and time frame/s.

Of cause time is a measurement of one process against another.
Nothing more or less.

Likewise forces are a measurement of acceleration.
Nothing more or less.

Both are created by man and are not real.

An inertial mass can change it's velocity by interacting with another inertial mass.

We need the rod length so lets use 1 metre.

So use the formula Rod 1 end rotation 1/3, 1 kg and length 1 m.
= 1/3 MOI

Rod 2 formula 1/12, 1 kg and length 1 m = 1/12 MOI

That would imply when Rod 1 decelerates Rod 2 will be accelerated to 4 time as fast.

Think about the 1 pound to 16 ounces quote.
Look at these as a force [Newtons] down when they were weighed.

Rod 1 exerts a force, if you like, to accelerate Rod 2.

So 16 ounce of force lifts 1 pound were the MOI is played out as about.

Cheers

This would assume what's been previously dubbed here as "full momentum transfer" - and you're spot-on; if we could transfer all of a body's momentum into a lighter body, it'd have that much more energy (equal to the square of the speed rise).

Actually accomplishing this simple bit of maths has, you'll appreciate, thus far proved elusive, unfortunately.. we've all had a crack at it in one form or another, but it just looks, practically, impossible (a word you know we all use reservedly 'round here)..

Notably, the OU interaction depicted on the Toys page isn't the mathematically-simplest possible solution either, which would actually be a 50% per-cycle efficiency accumulator, so attaining unity at the 2nd cycle and 150% at the 3rd; instead he's showing us a 25% p-c accumulator, as if practical reality sets the bar for minimum successful complexity slightly higher..

The upturned whistling top would now make that much more sense tho - the 'childrens game' is the spinning top itself, and the 'different way' it's being applied is in collecting gain as GPE rather than rotKE!

[MrVibrating]

I agree entirely with keeping things simple. I try very hard to keep it as simple as possible.
The problem is, explaining things simply allows us to convey what we are thinking, but it doesn't allow us to convey the complexity of what is going on.
If you were to explain very simply the principal of a nuclear reaction, i would not have any difficulty believing your explaination to be realistic, for the simple reason i accept that nuclear reactions are possible.
Had nuclear reactions not yet been invented (discovered) and for the last 300 years the whole world had decided they were totally impossible, and anyone spending any time trying to do so was an idiot, i would not accept your simple explaination. I would think you are talking complete nonsense.
Take two really small things and wack them together, this will cause a reaction that can power a city.
Take two closed circuits and keep wacking them together, they can turn a wheel.

Yes sir - you take a look around at he sheer depth and complexity of the rabbit holes of technical wizardry most alt energy researchers are digging through.. then we saunter up claiming to be able to do it just by waving a couple of masses around..

Obvs tho you gotta wave 'em in just the right way - the special, OU way. Whole thing would be preposterous otherwise.

It's not even that the terms of reference are unfamiliar - quite the opposite! We're claiming nothing less than a full-grown adult African bull elephant hiding in the fridge, unnoticed for three centuries. Because, tracks in the custard bowl. Why won't anyone fund us? So unfair..

Face it, we're back-row of the peanut gallery.. the helmets-only end of the short bus. Which basically makes us even more of a black swan. At night. Stealthy, see. Like ninjas. Only, swans. Point is, no one'll ever see us coming.. Sigh, dunno why i even bother wearing clothes..

[MrVibrating]

@Robin, Agor & all - sorry i'm lagging replies here, too little free time. Don't start work til 7 PM tomorrow so will catch up in the afternoon, but it's gone 3:30 already and i'm shot..

[MrVibrating]

7am, can't sleep (every friggin' night eh) - but re. "to lightly / easily raise a heavy thing high"; in all of basic mech physics (the three laws, & gravity, momentum and energy) there is only one possible cohesive interpretation of this poser, and it's to raise a weight using a reactionless acceleration in a rising FoR - ie. on the rising side of the wheel.

If, on the ascending side, we could thrust a weight upwards without incurring recoil back the wheel / axis, the weight will be rising higher than it would had the wheel decelerated per N3.

Note, we don't need to shield or counter-balance against gravity itself; just N3: applying an effective unilateral 'upwards' acceleration to a weight that's already rising is sufficient to bag a GPE gain.. provided the weight's already rising at its 'unity threshold' velocity - the speed at which it's at mechanical unity (exclusive of losses) - a 1 cm vertical acceleration in the relative frame might thus cover 5 cm in the ground / GPE frame.. and remember, gravity's only a time-constant ambient acceleration, or time rate of change of momentum - hence momentum yields as a function of delta-height are truly incidental to the time-spent-gravitating; because only reactionless accelerations (per the ice-skater effect) can modify G-times for a given dh, we normally encounter no deviations from height / spatial symmetry, yet this is the only tenuous restraint on the zero-momentum frame in gravitationally-augmented inertial interactions.. I/O G-time asymmetries - kiiking - artificially manipulate nature's 'default' change in momentum for a given change in height, showing that CoM itself and the zero-momentum frame - and thus, inertial frames generally - are temporally-bound, not spatially. CoM's apparent concern for coordinate space merely a side effect of the fact that I/O G-times in a closed loop trajectory are usually, necessarily, symmetrical, due to constancy of G..

..point being, that just because the proposed 'unilateral lift' is inputting more GPE, covering more height, doesn't imply any corresponding increased load on the actuator or whatever's performing the lift - the lift's G-time is identical whether it's reactionless in a rotating / rising FoR or from a standing start while fully respecting N3 - same change in system momentum either way, however accumulating piecemeal momenta's no longer the game; the solution is obviously to prime to unity speed via passive OB (ie. applying no other downwards force to it but gravity), at which point a single effectively-reactionless upwards thrust of a weight will produce OU GPE yields.

The descending OB weight will thus output more KE from GMH than was invested in its raising. The GPE interaction is still 100% symmetrical, but not its inherent inertial interaction with the planet.. the weight literally not raised upon this earth; as far as it's concerned, it's seeing free GPE from nowhere. However, it's also still mutually gravitating upwards towards a weight that's accelerating away from it, without pushing against it.. so the ZMF is 'rising' a little way with every cycle - basically a linear net force 'upwards' relative to wherever the wheel's sited on the globe..

Basically seems to meet all the key points so far..

Might knock up a sim just to further investigate what cancelling counter-momentum from an upwards acceleration actually looks like.. key questions being what is the form of reactionless acceleration, and why's its cost decoupled from the ground / KE FoR?

[MrVibrating]

There's only so many means to rendering effective RA's

• avoid N3 entirely by gaining momentum directly from an I/O G*t asymmetry (kiiking)

• counter-balance N3 with inertial torque (ice skater effect from a varying MoI)

• counter-balance it with gravity / OB torque

In every case, the resulting PE:KE asymmetry is equal to the GPE or CF PE losses.. yet this is only as regards PE:KE symmetry; input PE vs output GPE obviously changes the energy scaling conditions, so perhaps might provide a way of fully decoupling net I/O energies..

[agor95]

Hi MrVibrating

I am giving your paragraphs of text some analysis.
I taken on board you are really not getting enough sleep.

Sleep; we are not going anywhere and a large part of the population is in some form of lockdown. So we really are not leaving without being fined etc.

You are using phrases to convey the landscape of the interactions you are putting forward.

I for one has to consider your expansive text to see what I can relate to.

I am also mindful to what out for a concept that is inspired and what a persons natural habit of slipping back to a conventional understanding and miss the insight being posted.

You should be asleep by now - as this text should be boring enough :-)

This is were I am now :-

1. Newtons observations [laws] are not gravity related.
2. I am decoupling Joules in the work calculation and the Potential Energy calculations
for Height, motion and strain.
3. A FoR local that is moving in relation to a global Frame of Reference can be considered to having a net mass and velocity. This being made by all the masses present within it.

4. It so easy to get into a muddle by mixing different calculations from different contexts.

All the Best - to getting some sleep

[Robinhood46]

FOR is an important factor.
A worm in an apple falling from a tree, does not have the same experience as a person sitting under the tree. A person in space would have yet another experience.
If the total energy balance must = 0, then can we not give a fraction less to the worm and allow the person under the tree to use it as he wishes?

[agor95]

I hope that was an Inch worm.

[Robinhood46]

I really couldn't say, i was the one in the space ship.

[agor95]

... making energy is as simple as applying a reactionless rise in momentum; eg. two 1 kg masses both at 1 m/s = 1 J of KE, now apply a 100% asymmetric 1 m/s inertial interaction between them, thus only accelerating one, so now one mass is at 2 m/s, the other still at 1 m/s.. hence 2 J + 0.5 J = 2.5 J, a rise of 1.5 J.. that internal acceleration only cost ½ J,

I have been revising my physics school days understanding.

In the two Rods example I want to cause a collision, but first I really have check my kinenmatics knowledge.

I know this is basic stuff for most.

1 Joule of work is done when 1kg inertial mass has been displaced 1 metre.

That is achieved by a force of 1 Newton which is the acceleration a 1 kg at a rate 1 m/s^2 [squared].

However the 1 kg is starting at zero speed and ending at 1 m/s speed in a second.
So average speed is between these 0.5 m/s. Therefore the distance is only 0.5 metre.

And that means 1 Newton for 1 second on 1 kg costs 0.5 joule in the first second.

A Watt is Joules per second; in this case as it happened for 1 second is 0.5 joule / 1 second.
That is 0.5 Watt of power.

Now an interial interaction on two 1 kg masses moving at 1 m/s in which the second is accelerated
upto 2 m/s.

As the two masses are the same if a force exist between them then both will accelerate by the same amount. However in opposite directions.

Now if there was a compressed spring between them then they would get the same pressure.
Mass 1 would decelerate and Mass 2 would accelerate.

So Mass 1 could have 0 m/s and Mass 2 with 2 m/s.

The K.E. is now 0.5 * 1 kg * (2 m/s * 2 m/s) = 2 J

We added 1 J to start the movements and 1 J to stop Mass 1 and speed up Mass 2.

P.S. Working with units of 1 & 2 were squaring and halving with those units.
However the physical effect needs to be valid for all units 3 and above.

Note. Not all is lost but on a firm foundation.

[agor95]

If you own a Newton's cradle then you will notice it moves in reality different than a sim.

The main energy is transferred as shown. However there is a small movement in the center section. This builds up as a swing.

Could we used this effect instead of treating it as a problem?

[agor95]

I would like to get to knocking the 1 kg Rod 1 and Rod 2 together.

There is one thing we need to do. That is to look at Rod 1 [ end rotation] until it is vertical.

Now both Rod 1 & Rod 2 have Stork Bills connecting their ends to the hub and can slide through the hub.

When Rod 1 was rotating it's speed pinned it in the rotation end position.

Now the momentum has been pass from Rod 1 to Rod 2.

The Stork Bill is set to pull up Rod 1 that is now slowly rotating.
This lifts Rod 1 so it's pivot point is in the middle.

Rod 2 remember was at 55 degrees and it has the same stork bill pull up.
As it is not vertical the stork bill has lifted it pass the middle mark.

It is top heavy and has received the 4:1 increase in momentum.
Then gravity kicks in to add momentum.

So Rod 1 is moving to the 55 degree position. It's moving up to the middle mark and more.
Rod 2 is now end rotating. It is following the path Rod 1 was doing before.

I am giving this description so I can take my time on the math's modeling and sim.

P.S. You might get way with simple elastic rope/bands.
However you will get 8 bangs per cycle with 2 units of 2 rods above.

Note. I think this Decouples Momentum per-cycle RPM yields.

Cheers

[MrVibrating]

Serious 'Doh!' moment - just realised i've been missing an obvious permutation which might significantly recast our options going forwards:

• up til now i've been generating asymmetric inertial interactions by applying an additional, counter-balancing force, as from gravity or inertial torque (ice-skater effect), to skew momentum distributions from otherwise-symmetrical forces / torques applied between masses / inertias

The resulting unidirectional momentum gain is then 'consolidated' with an inelastic collision, or braking phase.


So, why not just switch the biasing from the 'acceleration' phase, to the 'collision / braking / deceleration' phase?

Instead of asymmetric accelerations, asymmetric decelerations, or collisions..


What benefits might this offer?

• as amply demonstrated already, sinking counter-momentum to gravity during the acceleration phase sacrifices that weight's output GPE - so we still have to keep re-lifting it, but get no KE from its drops.. just a KE 'gain' on the accelerated mass, equal to that forfeited GPE output

• equally, sinking counter-momentum to inertial torque (the ice-skater effect) works just as 'well' - the KE 'gain' only equal to the additional work done against CF force; moreover, the momentum 'gain' is only equal to the momentum lost by closing a vMoI whilst preventing its corresponding acceleration

At least gravity and time actually render a momentum gain, but its cost is still locked to unity.. again, by the fact that both GPE and KE are relative to the same, ground, FoR (specifically the 'height' and 'velocity' components respectively). Hence all the time we're asymmetrically-accelerating one mass, we're preventing gravity's acceleration of another, both accelerations being relative to the ground and energy-symmetrical.

Since GPE and KE can surely only be in the same, ground, FoR, we appear to find ourselves in something of a bind - inertial torque on its own can't even change net momentum; gravity and time can, but with GPE = GMH and KE = ½MoI*RPM², I and O are in the same FoR and singing from the same hymn sheet.

Dead end! But it can't be, right? There's simply nowhere else to turn! There has to be a trap door or ladder or something!?



So, what if the 'acceleration' phase is perfectly N3-respecting. Hands-off, no interference; when an internal weight acceleration's applied, the wheel is simply allowed to decelerate, responding normally..

..but then, upon landing on its rim-stop - in that instant - we apply an appropriate pulse of additional biasing force to soak up the counter-momentum..?

As noted already, the only place we can possibly hope to sink it is G*t - inertial torque alone obviously conserving momentum.

However what gives me some hope is that the instant of an inelastic collision is kinda inherently RPM-invariant, no? You no longer need to sustain the additional counter-balancing force - and its causative workload - while waiting for the internal acceleration to complete in finite time, in an accelerating rotating FoR, right?

IOW, perhaps this lil' switcheroo solves the thread objective - affording instantaneous and consistent momentum yields invariant of some range of RPM.. see what i'm getting at?

So for example it could square with Wolff's impressions of the landing weights seemingly imparting more momentum than could've been induced by their fall alone, however rather than being imbued with an excess of momentum in their acceleration (by somehow not counter-decelerating the wheel), maybe they landed with no more or less than precisely the 'right amount' of momentum for their given G-time each cycle - ie. yields naturally decreasing a little each cycle as RPM's build up - but then asymmetrically distributing it in the instant of collision with the rim-stop..

That is, when landing, a brief impulse of additional biasing force is applied to the weight or its armature, thus preventing its deceleration that would otherwise result from the impact.

In a nutshell, an effectively-asymmetric inelastic collision exchanges momenta in zero-time.. in a literal instant. The period of work required to produce an appropriate counter-balancing force is thus also effectively instantaneous... whereas, biasing the acceleration phase inherently requires finite time, from a finite force constant, yet frustratingly, in a rotating FoR in which G-times inevitably decrease with rising RPM..

See the glimmer of light here? A biased collision could cause the same momentum rise each cycle invariant of RPM.

Dunno. Just thinking in general terms, first principles. The momentum source / sink still has to be G*t, somehow, but i've no idea how to go about trying to implement it yet.


Another angle here tho is that we know inelastic collisions are necessary, because:

• an asymmetric acceleration at any ambient velocity produces instant OU

From a standing start you get unity, but if you're already moving- no matter how slowly - that velocity simply adds to the efficiency of the reactionless acceleration, causing proportionate OU.

IOW you could thrust a heavy thing upwards easily in one fell swoop, just letting it swing down passively then giving it a lil' unilateral kick back up, albeit gaining GPE in lieu of KE.

Yet if reactionless accelerations were possible, why does the Toys page show us this interaction based on 'five quarters' - the 25% accumulator?

The method B. is pointing to necessitates collisions, whereas KE or GPE gains from an asymmetric acceleration alone do not!

If RA's were practical we could sling up a GPE gain near-silently every cycle..

..whereas B's wheels made banging sounds, which were purely functional and not subterfuge or misdirection.

Note also, in light of this proposal of asymmetric inelastic collisions, the hammer-shaped levered weights in MT 133 and 134 - all but explicitly representing a directional preference for a collision, no?

Likewise, the lower hammer toy on the Toys page, with its 'directional' hammers..

If a weight lands on its rim-stop without experiencing recoil, while the wheel's already turning, the resulting efficiency of acceleration of the wheel will be on an OU trajectory, depending only on the weight-to-wheel inertia ratio..

In the context of the Toys page, then, if the lower hammer toy depicts a series of asymmetric inelastic collisions, the upper hammer toy must signify the biasing GPE's sinking the counter-momenta.

Need some time to stew on this, see if any compelling mathematical patterns fall out (ie. re. the 25% accumulator), and what sort of proof-of-concept to start from..

[MrVibrating]

As you're drifting off to sleep..

..driving ten junctions up the road..

..a nice soak in the bath (scotch & stogie optional)..

..just any quiet time, anywhere..

Ask yourself:

• "what's the last thing that happens in an OU interaction?"

In one instant you have a system at unity minus losses; then, 'something' happens - some physical action transpires - upon completion of which the system is now OU... WTF just happened?

The system's mass hasn't increased. It can only ever have 'the right amount' of KE for its given mass / inertia and speed. Equally, we cannot go back in time and take back any energy already spent. Logically, therefore, some kind of input discount must've transpired - the system energy state increased, but for less work done, somehow.

Walk it through, and you'll arrive at this same hilltop: that final, decisive, phase-transitioning action can only be a) a reactionless acceleration, or b) a reactionless deceleration / collision.

Nothing else can fill that blank.

We've pretty exhaustively eliminated the former option, so one possibility remains..

..but encouragingly, it also seems to better fit the clues, as well as the implicit physical requirements..