Vibrator, I am confident that if you confine your concept to a closed system that both the angular momentum and angular energy will be conserved. In a simple case of a rotating object, if the MoI is changed by a factor of two, then the object spin will speed up or down by that factor. And, as a consequence the angular energy will remain the same since it is proportional to the square of the angular speed but inversely proportional to the MoI.
I can not comment upon your special system because for some reason I did not get additional information about your setup. You can be assured that the conservation laws are intact. Dave Sent from Mail for Windows 10 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 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..
