The system is closed, and so yes, angular momentum IS constant per cycle, and, as explained already, the energy gain is dependent upon this fact.
It is the conservation of angular momentum that causes the energy gain. Angular momentum is angular inertia (MoI) times angular velocity. In a closed system of interacting masses, it is constant. Thus, if MoI is reduced by half, say, then speed automatically doubles, to conserve their product. This is often referred to as the 'ice skater effect' - as she pulls her limbs inwards, the pirouette accelerates - she spins up, due to the action of the conservation of angular momentum. MoI is given by mass times radius squared (MoI = mr²). However, the ice skater is performing work against centrifugal force as she pulls her limbs inwards. The integral of that force over that displacement gives a figure, in Joules, precisely equal to the rise in rotational KE. So, generally, this interaction is indeed energy conservative, as well as momentum conservative. Rotational KE however is also a function of MoI. So, it's a central factor in both momentum, and KE. Rot KE = ½ MoI times angular velocity squared (½Iw², equivalent to the ½mV² linear metric). These are just the standard formulas, not complicated equations. Everyone here can solve them in seconds. So with these points in mind, please observe the "MoI exploit" diagram: it shows that it is trivially-easy to cut MoI in half, by suddenly locating twice as much mass, at half the radius. Again, because MoI squares with radius (it's mass times radius squared), twice the mass at half the radius equals half the MoI. This MoI change occurs instantaneously, and is caused by the torque being applied to the orbiting motors. The instant it is applied, the system's MoI ceases being a function of the absolute mass radius, and instead devolves to that of the orbiting mass radius being borne at the orbiting axes themselves.. ..and so its value is halved. Yet, it is a closed-system of interacting masses, without a stator - so, it has no mechanical means of exchanging momentum with the outside world. Its momentum is conserved. So, its speed instantly doubles. Yet rotKE squares with speed - it doesn't simply double or half... ..and so half the MoI at twice the speed equals twice the energy. CoAM has just doubled our system KE, for free - we've performed zero work against centrifugal force - we haven't even performed the radial translation yet, the masses are still out at their physical max radius. But their mass is only 'felt' - only has substantive context in relation to - the radius of the torque-couple - ie. the radius of the motor axis applying the torque. At the same time however, this torque is cancelling the real rotations of the orbiting rotors, and so transferring their very real momentum over to the central axis instead, conserving its total. But, because they're no longer actually rotating, the orbiting rotors are not generating axial CF force... ..the masses are still subject to orbital CF force, however the inbound vs outbound F*d integrals for that workload are mutually self-cancelling, summing to zero work done. Hence that final radial translation, consolidating the effective (dynamic) MoI reduction and subsequent KE rise, with a physical (static), equal MoI reduction, is free to perform - no net work has been done. So in summary, in the basic "200%, no gravity" example, the system begins coasting, carrying 8 J of rotKE, with an MoI of 16 kg-m². That MoI is then halved down to 8 kg-m², the instant torque's applied to the orbiting rotors. So system velocity - and rotKE - duly double. Instantly. Without accelerating. Physical slabs of mass simply 'flip' between physical velocities, INSTANTANEOUSLY. An "infinite acceleration", in zero time. No measurable acceleration phase at all, basically. Just a binary change in speed - and corresponding kinetic energy. Please, don't stress, anyone - i had low expectations of what to expect here, but precisely because of the absurdity of the claim in contrast to Vorts' high level of scholarship. Again, everyone here can solve this on the back of an envelope. If it helps, here are two further control cases to compare to the previous ones: in the first, the radial translation - and thus, physical consolidation of the energy gain - has been omitted: https://i.ibb.co/fYfbCjH/Single-Mech-GPE-21-No-Rad-Trans-v2.gif So here, the effect is exploiting a regular (fully conservative) GPE interaction (that of its own mass), however the MoI reduction - and thus the energy gain - only exist whilst torque's being applied to that orbiting axis. So, if we clicked forwards one frame after it's paused there, we'd see the MoI instantly flip back to double its value, and the speed and KE instantly halve in response. Finally, for the benefit of those already thinking in terms of open vs closed system momenta (you're on the right track!), here's what happens when we try to harness the KE gain by applying an external stator: https://i.ibb.co/NL83kc7/Momentum-Dive.gif Here, the net system's rotation drives the lower cogwheel / sprocket, which is affixed to the background (world). That external 'stator wheel' then drives an identical one at the central axis, which in turn drives the two orbiting rotors. Think chains & sprockets, or drive belts / pulleys, whatever. We see that the net system momentum is no longer conserved - the instant that transmission system's engaged, applying the orbiting torques, the net system momentum crashes, dumping half of it to earth, via that lower stator wheel. Comparing that last run back to the gain outcomes, we see that in contrast, their KE gain is contingent upon the net system momentum remaining isolated, and all torques and counter-torques being contained. What you're thus seeing is a 'divergent frame of reference' - an effective violation of Newton's 3rd law, wrought by manipulating the system's effective mass constancy (again, see the "MoI exploit" explanation). If energy is ultimately conserved, then almost by definition it's being provided by the Higgs, and thus this could be the absolute antitheses of a 'free lunch', in really, really bad way.. Flying blind here guys, really depending on piquing the inner classicist in all y'all.. a few mins, Notepad, Calculator, Google... I'm certain you will not be wasting your time, but you're the first folks to see it with any chance of grasping it. I'm a complete loner, trying to reach out for some kind of initial peer review. It's not a machine design, just a series of simple, elementary measurements. It is the validity of these measurements that require your attention (again, not prospective machine designs!).. If those measurements are invalid, then the matter is trifling, i'm (still) an idiot, no harm done and your services to the cause are well-rendered and just. If OTOH they're correct, then this is not a frivolous matter and so i'm trying to do the responsible thing and elevate accordingly. So please, gents - science hats on, and "check it again!".. Any questions / clarifications, fire away. NB: again, the 'motors' aren't 'electrical' - they're just torque * angle, as metered, the same standard metric throughout, and which resolves to unity in the above example using an external stator (as in all other uses). Likewise, the 'linear actuators' are merely the application of linear force and displacement, as metered. Thus neither has any means of applying any more energy than their classical 'work done' as a function of the force and displacement being plotted. Moreover, the system always has precisely the correct rotational KE for its momentum's given distribution of MoI and RPM, so there is no accounting gap that might signal the presence of a further input energy source. This is simply a measurement of elementary classical forces interacting, not a machine design - a simulation, not mere animation, and furthermore the gain's being calculated in real-time, in duplicate - independently by me (using the above standard equations), as well as by the sim's own low-level calculus. On Sat, Feb 2, 2019 at 1:19 AM Dave Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote: > 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 <https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> 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 > <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.. > > >
