Brian— I thought it might be moment of inertia associated with a spinning top or such device.
Iso it would take some force to change the direction of spin if done slowly . If an electric field is used or a magnetic field is used energy may be conserved but angular momentum is changed remaining with the same absolute value. The energy does not depend upon the direction of spin and the resulting angular momentum –a vector wuantity. Bob Cook ________________________________ From: Brian Ahern <ahern_br...@msn.com> Sent: Friday, February 1, 2019 4:42:37 AM To: bobcook39...@hotmail.com; vortex-L@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:A simple example of Mechanical Over-Unity Is MoI Moment of inertia? You allude to an electrical motor, but you leave details out. The abrupt changes in the plots are non-physical. ________________________________ From: bobcook39...@hotmail.com <bobcook39...@hotmail.com> Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2019 10:28 PM To: vortex-L@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:A simple example of Mechanical Over-Unity Can you identify parameters of a Mol. What units (mass velocity length angular momentum etc ) does a Mol have. The Link provided would not allow connection with my computer, A better description of what a Mol is would help. Bob Cook ________________________________ From: Vibrator ! <mrvibrat...@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2019 2:34:15 PM To: vortex-L@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]:A simple example of Mechanical Over-Unity It looks to me like a fait accompli, but i might as well be claiming prince Albert in a can. Yet i NEED to know whether this is real or crass error. Some kind of resolution! It's just basic mechanics - force, mass & motion. I know there's people here with a good grasp of classical physics - and this really IS dead-simple - all i need is anyone confident enough in that knowledge to be prepared to 'call it', one way or the other. I'm on me lonesome here - no academic contacts whatsoever, and with the mother of all absurd claims.. What it is: - Changing MoI, whilst rotating, without performing any work against CF force. Decreasing and increasing MoI this way effectively creates and destroys rotational KE. - MoI is caused to 'flip', instantly, thus causing an instantaneous change in velocity, ie. a binary change in physical velocity, without physically accelerating, or equivalently, via an effectively infinite acceleration. - A series of Working Model sims demonstrating these results, tracking all input and output energy; the latter, calculated via two independent routes in parallel, with perfect agreement and in apparent confirmation of OU. There are two different forms of input work applied: - crude 'motors' - tho not meaningfully 'electrical'; they're simply torque controlled over angle, and so producing a "torque * angle" plot - 'linear actuators' - but again, merely the application of linear force controlled over a displacement, and again plotted accordingly So i've been taking these two integrals - at least, in those cases where's there's any input work at all - as 32,765 data points crunched with a Riemann sum via Excel. Happy to provide those if anyone wants to see 'em. Likewise, if anyone wants to see any variations / sanity checks, i can knock up more sims.. The thing is, in the most basic form of the interaction, there's no input work at all.. yet a 200% KE gain. With only a very trivial modification (gravity brought into play), the gain rises to 800% - partly because the torque * angle integral goes substantially negative.. I've solved it down to 1/10th of a microjoule, so the gain appears to be many orders over noise. Please - anyone - is this for real or have i completely lost it? https://drive.google.com/open?id=1P1tlUn7THSKZ0CjWaFHFzFtOfrYVY6Ls<https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdrive.google.com%2Fopen%3Fid%3D1P1tlUn7THSKZ0CjWaFHFzFtOfrYVY6Ls&data=02%7C01%7C%7C8153d65fe7ef452c037108d687f779a1%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636845894304852575&sdata=bSx%2FTo%2Bz6KNfDyvQMwfTfur1%2BFXg%2B3r73oWd7e80ptw%3D&reserved=0> NB: MoI switch-downs greater than factors of two are equally feasible - so we could likewise square or cube rotKE with little more difficulty.. Climbing the walls here..
