Hi John, and thank you so much for taking an interest! The input energy to the motors is being logged in terms of torque vs angle. This integral has also been checked against torque * angular vel * time - not shown in the sims to reduce clutter, but both metric produce an identical flat trace..
...in other words, the 'torque' component in both metrics is registering as 'zero'. Under all other circumstances, motor torque * angle produces a perfect integral, from which any interaction can be solved to unity. So, why in this case is it calculating no net torque? The only possibility is that there is another, identical torque, of equal sign and magnitude... ..and THERE IS! It's an 'inertial torque', caused by conservation of angular momentum, in response to the halving of the orbital MoI! Activating the motors causes the orbital MoI to converge to the net orbiting mass focused at the radius of the orbiting motor axes. Thus orbital MoI suddenly flips from a value of 16 kg-m², down to just 8 kg-m². Since angular momentum is MoI * RPM, the latter instantly doubles to conserve their product. Net AM never wavers throughout - doesn't so much as blip when the MoI changes. All 16 kg-m²-rad/s remains conserved, as it must be. And that amount of momentum, manifested in 8 kg-m² of MoI, can only exist at precisely 2 rad/s, whereupon it has a rotKE=½Iw² value of precisely 16 J - and can have no more or less. So we end up with precisely the right amount of KE, for the given conserved momentum, and its change in MoI. No more or less KE can exist at that particular momentum distribution. The energy gain was thus caused by CoAM! Thus if the motors had somehow commuted some other form of energy that somehow slipped past the torque & angle plot... where is it? Surely it would have to be surplus to the 16 J of the conserved 16 kg-m²-rad/s momentum at 8 kg-m² * 2 rad/s? Yet there is only just ENOUGH energy - precisely the right amount - for that momentum configuration... Mate, i bat down OU claims in my sleep. If i'm bringing this here, to share with others, it's because i've been unable to crack it.. I'm fallible (very, very fallible), so the de facto conclusion has to remain error until someone else validates.. at that point it's TWO crazy folks, rather than just muggins 'ere. Still only two crazy folks tho... ..cracking OU is only half the battle... communicating the news to anyone else capable of following it is the tricky part.. most people so able wouldn't waste a synapse trying (and quite rightly so), hence 'catch 22'.. On Tue, Feb 5, 2019 at 6:32 AM John Shop <quack...@outlook.com> wrote: > Sorry - it seems I got the polarity of the reaction torque wrong. The > reaction torque from the orbiting motors acts to *increase* the rotation > rate of the central rotor so that the total angular momentum as seen from > the central bearing (which produces no torque as its motor is > free-wheeling) remains constant. Looking at your simulation it seems you > have included this reaction torque as your central rotation rate does in > fact double. > > However I think now that what you have not counted is the energy that has > to be provided to the orbiting motors in order to provide this change in > rotation rate of the central rotor while "stopping" the orbiting rotors > (with respect to absolute space). From the point of view of the orbital > motors, their rotor/stator pairs are stationary before this action and > their rotors have to be accelerated with respect to their stator to a speed > of twice the original rotation rate. I suspect that this action takes > exactly the 8J that gets added to the system giving a total of 16 after > this action. Moving the orbiting masses to their respective orbiting > centres requires no net energy. > > On 5/02/2019 11:03 am, John Shop wrote: > > Hi Vibrator, > > Since you NEED to know, I will point out where the fallacy lies. When the > orbiting motors activate to stop the orbiting rotors from rotating, you > have neglected the reaction torque of these motors. The reaction torque > acts back on the central rotor, also stopping its rotation. > > In fact while the orbiting motors are *slowing and stopping* the rotation > of the orbiting rotors, they are absorbing energy from the system and > acting as *generators* producing electrical energy back into the power > supply. Once they have brought the orbiting rotors to a stop, then their > reaction torque will also have *slowed and stopped* the central rotor so > that the complete system is stationary at that point in time. > > So the 8 joules pumped in by the central motor, is sucked back out by the > orbiting motors slowing the system down leaving no energy in the system and > no motion at the completion of that operation. > > This is just what my well educated intuition suggests will happen. > However I did not do any maths and so I might have got something wrong. > But at least these ideas should give you enough of a clue to unravel the > mystery yourself. > > On 1/02/2019 6:34 am, Vibrator ! wrote: > > 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.. > > > >
