Found an interesting paper last night - moreso in its assumptions, than conclusions - but i thought it worth sharing, in relation to my current state of progress..
I'd been thinking about the exploit i'm chasing down; to recap, as we all know, gravitational potential energy (GPE) is given by multiplying gravity, mass and height together. Really, all we're doing there is multiplying force and displacement, per the work / energy equivalence principle (energy / work done is equal to F*d, or torque * angle etc.), however to get the 'force' value we have to multiply the mass by gravity's acceleration. But the point is, all three of these components - G, M and H - are time-invariant constants over a closed-loop trajectory, and closed-loop trajectories through static fields yield zero net energy. Trying to generate a GPE asymmetry - to basically lift something when it's light and drop it when it's heavy, the mythical perpetually-overbalancing wheel - is the quintessential fools' errand, because the input and output energy fields share the same, static, reference frame. It is thus intrinsically impossible to gain (or lose) mechanical energy in a closed-loop GPE interaction. Anyone attempting to engineer an effective GPE asymmetry in spite of these facts is, unfortunately, suffering from 'pathological science'. But not so for momentum! We CAN gain momentum from a closed-loop GPE interaction. In fact it's made possible by a mechanism so simple, we all master it as children.. I'm ranting of course about swinging. No, not that kind; like a park swing. Legs-down whist descending increases our angular inertia (per m*r²), applying a negative inertial torque that decelerates us in order to conserve angular momentum (I*w), which thus increases our exposure time to gravity's constant acceleration (or more specifically, constant ambient rate of change of momentum), and so we soak up more momentum-from-gravity than we would've, had our MoI been held constant and left to accelerate passively. Conversely, legs-up when rising decreases our inertia, applying a positive inertial torque that speeds us up, shortening the period-length of 'negative G-time' in which we're shedding momentum back to gravity. In short, we're using the 'ice skater effect' to speed up or slow down our exposure times to the gravitating condition, to affect a momentum asymmetry between rising and falling phases; our per-cycle momentum yield is precisely proportional to the respective rising vs falling time-period asymmetry, relative to gravity's constant acceleration. Where a pendulum is passively 'breathing' momentum-from-gravity in and out, a swinger is actively pumping it in and out (damn these double entendres). The Estonians have even made a national sport out of it - 'kiiking' - brawn vs MoI, basically, but look a little closer and there's something here for the brains, too.. Look up, specifically, at the axis; the 'up' vs 'down' G-time asymmetry is only possible because of the reactionless nature of inertial torques; they apply no counter-torque at the axis! Of course, since inertial torques are caused by the conservation of angular momentum - as opposed to an actual change in momentum that conventional torque applies - no induction of counter-momentum is thus invoked, obviating a role for counter-torque in the first place. Nonetheless, the 'ice skater effect' is effectively opening up a momentum-asymmetry - an effective violation of Newton's 3rd, and thus 1st, laws - by sidestepping the mass-constancy constraint, and exploiting the variability of mechanical velocity - and thus 'input' vs 'output' exposure times - relative to gravity's constancy, via these transiently-reactionless accelerations / decelerations.. In all other mechanical systems, there are no unilateral accelerations; a force can only be applied between two masses / inertias, and their mass / inertia * velocity products are always equal and opposite in sign, for a net zero change. But here, we're gaining angular momentum without counter-torquing the planet! In fact, the net acceleration applied to the planet must be linear, because it spends more time falling towards the swinger than it does falling away.. Yet angular momentum is also being induced to the planet regardless, by the fact that the swing's angular momentum gain ultimately dissipates back to earth when it stops, unless it is perfectly 'undone' by reversing the sequence of inertial torques in an otherwise-lossless system.. This momentum-from-gravity * time mechanism is the only possible solution to Bessler's wheel - an apparently genuine 'perpetual-motion gravity wheel' validated by Leibniz and 's Gravesande personally (the former being 'the energy guy' where Newton was 'the momentum guy', and the latter having conducted the famous experiment dropping brass balls onto a clay bed, noting that crater depth = 'work done' = energy, and that it squared with height and velocity); basically the two leading world experts on CoE at that time, together with Johann Christian Wolff, Bernouli (not that one, his brother) amongst various other uninpeachable sources - the former giving, in his correspondences of the time, what must be the earliest-ever descriptions of what we would now consider 'vacuum energy' / ZPE etc., when he wrote: *"To begin with, it would appear to be beyond doubt that Orffyreus' wheel is not moved by any imaginable external force but rather, its movement is due to the internal weights which are applied in a special manner. My reasons for arriving at this conclusion are:a) I saw, myself, that the wheel began to rotate with speed and uniformity, without any appreciable external thrust or push until it was slowed from outside. Any attempt at fraud from outside was impossible because the wheel bearings were uncovered on both sides and one could see the axle journals turning in their bearings. Upon request, the wheel was moved from its stand and put on another one.b) Before translocating the wheel, the Inventor who was performing the test for the officially appointed Commissioners, took out the weights and permitted one of them to be touched, wrapped in a handkerchief. He did not allow the weight to be touched on the end, but lengthwise, it felt cylindrical and not very thick. One could hear the weights landing on the overbalanced side, as though they were swinging, from which one can assume that the overbalancing was caused by their impact. Furthermore there is the testimony of the Landgrave of Hesse-Kassel, who is experienced in evaluating mechanical inventions and had seen the internal mechanism of the wheel and ran it for many weeks in a locked room, keeping the keys himself, having personally locked and sealed the doors and windows with his own seal. He testified both verbally and in an officially printed certificate that the movement of the wheel was caused by nothing more than the weights and that it would run continuously unless the internal structure of the wheel was altered.2. Since it is impossible, according to mathematical proof, for a machine to run continuously by its own force, some matter from outside must contribute to its motion. That matter can not be perceived by any of the senses but could be made use of by people who know nature better. I suggest, therefore, that the weights on the wheel's periphery are attached by rods in such a way that when at rest on the lighter side of the wheel, they can be lifted, but when they start to fall, after the wheel has turned, they deliver a force on impact, acquired during the fall, onto a piece of wood which is fixed to the periphery. In this way, the wheel is put into rotation by the impact of the weights, which can be heard. But the force which drives the weights, does not come from the machine itself, rather it comes from some fluid, invisible matter by which the movement of the falling weights becomes faster and faster. Orffyreus' whole invention consists of an artful arrangement of weights, in such a way that they are lifted when at rest and acquire force during their fall, and in my opinion it is this that he keeps secret. This is also consistent with what Orffyreus says, that anyone could easily understand his invention, as soon as he is allowed to look into the wheel.3. It is possible therefore, that when the internal structure of the wheel has been revealed, some mathematicians may decide that it is not a perpetual motion machine as there is an additional force involved, namely the unknown substance which applies continuous pressure to heavy bodies when they fall, and which adds to the force of their impact..."* ..in a letter to Johann Daniel Schumacher, 3rd July, 1722. For his part, Liebniz wrote: * "Orffyreus is a friend of mine, and he allowed me, some time ago, to carry out some experiments with his machine. It ran continuously for two hours in my presence and demonstrated considerable power. There is something extraordinary about Orffyreus' machine and we must not ignore it, because it could bring tremendous benefits." * ..and also: * "If Mr. Gartner has already detected Orffyreus' artifice he should be able to imitate it. As far as I am concerned, as I have said often, I do not regard that movement to be solely mechanical but stemming from some physical principle. But what it is I can still not puzzle out. It will be useful because the machine can exhibit considerable energy for an extended length of time. In which case, I cannot call this work of skill a fraud, if it is able to deliver what is expected of it..."* Robust mechanical over-unity was confirmed by the worlds' leading experts on CoE back in the 18th century, people..! They basically deduced "vacuum energy" on the assumption that CoE was immutable, in spite of all measures taken to detect / eliminate a local energy source. That absence of evidence of a source could not be taken as evidence of absence; That it had to be a transfer of energy from somewhere else, rather than 'creation ex nihilo'. Truly, Enlightenment thinking, in the Leibniz school.. With testimonies of such authority, we're left with the startling realisation that, somehow, mechanical OU IS possible, and that Bessler (Orffyreus) had worked out how to do it.. but also that this knowledge comes to us somewhat exclusively, since 'everyone knows' GPE asymmetries are intrinsically impossible; we'd be insulting the intelligence of anyone by even seeming to suggest otherwise, trashing any remaining credibility for our fringe interests.. Landgrave Karl examined the internal structure under oath of secrecy, then sealed the system, running, in a specially-constructed room under armed guard, having ensured no possible external interference, and left it for 5 weeks, without any loss of performance.. There can be no paradoxes! This mystery has a simple solution.. So, you can't make energy-from-gravity, but you CAN make momentum-from-gravity, at energy cost... ..furthermore, a given amount of mass / inertia has a set quantity of KE, defined by the equation ½mV², or ½Iw² for rotation; in other words a rotating system only ever has precisely the 'right' amount of KE for its given distribution of inertia and velocity. That is to say, OU cannot be manifested as an 'excess' of KE, but only as a reduction of required input energy. An even better way to frame it is that the energy value of momentum is always given by its KE value, relative to the 'stationary' (ground) reference frame, however its cost of production, in an OU system, must necessarily be reduced. It thus needs to be relative to a different FoR.. Breaking the symmetry of PE to KE thus means invoking separate reference frames - and since the KE has to reside in the terrestrial frame, it is the FoR of the input energy workload that must diverge, thus requiring an effective N3 break / momentum asymmetry.. And so the same the conditions that allow us to gain height on a swing - to gain momentum from gravity * time - also free us from the usual factors enforcing CoE - specifically the inviolability of CoM. Here's the rub: when buying momentum-from-gravity * time, the unit energy cost of momentum needn't square with velocity. In principle, we could accelerate a 1 kg-m² MoI by 1 rad/s for half a Joule, repeatedly, hence spending just 5 J over ten consecutive cycles. Yet at 10 rad/s a 1 kg-m² inertia has 50 J, not 5.. so, a 10x unity result. So, if the momentum clearly comes from gravity... where's the energy gain come from? I mean, just assuming energy is, ultimately, conserved? I'd been thinking "the Higgs field" - since that's what substantiates the 'inertia' component in the energy equations.. however, last night, i reverted to an earlier view i'd been kicking around some years ago - isn't the energy source actually time itself? Back when i first realised this as a possible solution, i immediately noted that the process necessarily sinks stray counter-momentum to earth, via gravity, so checked the weather reports for Christmas 1717, when Bessler was demonstrating his largest, most powerful wheel at castle Weissenstein; sure enough, within weeks of the commencement of the five-week non-stop demo, an unprecedented tidal wave descended upon the northwest European coastline, causing immense destruction and suffering. Two weeks later, after the demo had ceased, a second, slightly smaller storm surge struck the same area again. I suspect these 'double whammy' weather systems were the sloshing caused by the initiation and later cessation of the equally-unprecedented linear acceleration being applied to the entire planet for the 5-week duration of Bessler's demo, from its own gravity field - essentially, your classic "buy a free-energy machine, get a free warp drive, whether you want one or not" type situation, where the 'warp bubble' is the planet's gravity well. Bessler smashed that machine a short while later claiming 'IP concerns', but i think he'd actually put two and two together and realised his likely responsibility.. and perhaps also that if the IP were successfully sold as intended, the world would eventually make that same connection - both as to his culpability (however inadvertent), but also its future utility as a free-energy panacea. Puts the whole 'fear of success' thing into perspective, eh.. "Energy from time..?" i was thinking this time, so once again, i Googled it, as you do... and got one hit; this guy: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/312070781_ENERGY_FROM_TIME In it, the author postulates that due to relativity, the planet's velocity relative to the CMBR is causing its 'physical' time rate to decelerate relative to that of its historical past, in turn causing an effective reduction in its absolute KE over time. He further sets forth the assumption that KE losses necessarily - as if almost by definition - dissipate to heat, and thus attempts to calculate this heat production and resolve it against the radiation of known bodies such as Earth and other planets / exoplanets. Perhaps unsurprisingly, he finds a negative result. The real problem here is widespread - ignorance of the fact that KE losses can be non-dissipative! Such interactions defy CoE as commonly held, in that usually it is the momentum that is dissipating, and thus losing velocity and KE as it gains mass / inertia; in effect, all of the momentum remains 'here' in the mechanical, classical realm... Now let a small button magnet (like your typical NdFeB) attract over some small airgap onto a static lump of pig iron, whilst measuring the work done / F*d. Rough iron has significant Sv (entropy viscosity), so its induced magnetisation doesn't peak immediately - it takes a few seconds to reach 'B-max'.. ..you could even amp-up the iron and listen in on the Barkhausen jumps, as cascades of progressively-harder pinned domains yield to the growing net magnetisation of their aligning neighbors. When they peter out, it's done. Now simply pull the neo back off the iron, again measuring the force over that same distance. Because B rose after the mechanical output work had already completed, the input work to separate them is greater. That extra work there was spent in terms of F*d. Magnetic force, times distance, whatever the initial airgap was. It quite emphatically, categorically, DIDN'T go to heat. THERE IS such a thing as the magnetocaloric effect (MCE), but this ain't it (ie. both strokes either adiabatic or isothermal, but not mixing, thus no heat pump mechanics are invoked). Quite simply, input force was greater over the same distance, hence a closed-loop interaction lost mechanical energy, to.. virtual photon flux / ambient quantum momentum. Thus, a 'non-dissipative' loss of mechanical energy, using just a magnet, scrap iron and rudimentary force meter. To put it another way; you think Bessler's energy came FROM heat (an effective 2LoT violation)?? It's obviously a 'not even wrong' hypothesis. The belief that mechanical energy asymmetries - of which KE losses are one kind - are inextricably restricted to thermal exchanges is just blinkered. For a start, what actual physical process could convert a planet's relativistic KE loss into internal heat in the first place? Some kind of 'aether' interaction that literally causes drag? Maybe that's what he was thinking, though the paper omits any such speculations.. >From the opening paragraphs i was optimistic - he establishes the interdependence of energy and inertial frames, but then loses it with this dogmatic and irrational 'magical heat from nowhere' hypothesis. This guy definitely ISN'T thinking about "energy from time" in the same way as me.. Swinging gains momentum from an 'up' vs 'down' gravity * time differential. It is, it seems to me, displacement through the time domain, rather than mere space, that subsidised Bessler's momentum gains, keeping the '½Iw²' cost of momentum to the minimum values of the 'w²' multiplier despite rising RPM's. Gravity alone is not a momentum source.. but is gravity without time anything at all? IE. isn't time an intrinsic component of gravity, if not all fundamental force interactions? And if this process must alter Earth's resting momentum state, isn't the resulting divergence of our zero-momentum frame principally an acceleration through time, rather than just through space? Could the solution to Bessler's wheel also open a window on time manipulation? Would an internal clock keep time relative to an external one? Fascinating angle, isn't it? My own progress has been slow over this last year - the problem i've been tackling head-on is that in just about any momentum-from-gravity scheme i've tested, the per-cycle momentum yield necessarily decreases with rising RPM, thus causing unity regardless of being able to accelerate the system sans counter-momentum. So, instead of increasing per-cycle input energy for a constant momentum yield, i've been getting constant input energies for momentum yields that decrease inversely to velocity, thus enforcing CoE from the other end of the equation.. Basically what i've been doing is testing various series of reactionless accelerate-and-brake cycles, in a rotating frame - sinking counter-momenta to gravity and that kind of lark, so a force is applied between two inertias, but because one's gravitating, only the other is able to accelerate, which then collides back with the other one, sharing back its momentum gain; rinse, repeat and measure.. but always in a rotating frame, such that the 'downwards' velocity of the descending side of the wheel was adding to that of any GPE interactions also on that side, and thus eating into their effective G-time per cycle with rising RPM. The only way out of this bind seems to be to apply linear radial GPE interactions instead, which are thus removed from the descending side of the wheel and so insulated from its ever-rising velocity / reducing G-time. The problem now though is how to convert that radial linear GPE output into a reactionless angular momentum rise, but if i can figure THAT out (and if it's possible, I WILL!) then the result will be a constant per-cycle input energy for a constant per-cycle momentum yield, invariant of RPM across some useful range of speed, and thus i will HAVE my 50 J of KE for just 5 J of work done, or whatever the final balance.. ain't gotta be perfect, like.. The thing is, if input energy is evolving linearly whilst KE can only square with velocity, then WHATEVER the input energy cost, it's a flat-line plot, which at some stage / RPM is going to be intersected by the diagonal KE plot, so even if it's dissipating energy out the wazoo, past some threshold velocity it'll still be OU.. Bessler didn't even have roller-bearings - just open, plain bearings. The banging sounds being made each cycle obviously dissipated much energy. And an OU mechanical system of course DEPENDS upon internal collisions - the unilaterally-accelerated inertia has to share back its momentum gain with the wheel / net system, thus bootstrapping itself into auto-accelerating by the accumulation / conservation of that unbalanced momentum over successive cycles. For a simple example, apply a force between two equal masses / inertias, one of which is also transiently gravitating, such that only the other is able to accelerate in response to that internally-applied force. Then, when the gravitating condition no longer applies (or has merely reduced), collide the two back together inelastically, equalising their velocity at a new, higher shared speed. Keep doing that, unilaterally accelerating one, then splatting it into the other. With full cancellation of counter-momentum, the energy required to accelerate 1 kg by 1 m/s is 0.5 J. A subsequent collision with another 1 kg will dissipate half of that - 0.25 J - sharing the remaining 0.25 J equally between them, with 0.125 J each. Now keep doing that, paying 0.5 J to accelerate 1 kg by 1 m/s, then colliding it into its unaccelerated partner. Even though you're dissipating fully 50% of all input energy, the system reaches unity after just two cycles, and 150% of unity at the third, continually increasing by 50% per cycle for every cycle thereafter, so 200% at the fourth, 250% at the fifth etc. etc. This is how Bessler achieved mechanical OU.. whilst accidentally piloting the whole planet, just a lil' bit. By dissipating a shedload of energy to heat, whilst gaining substantially more, seemingly from gravity and the passage of time itself. Remember, gravity alone isn't a source of anything; only an input vs output gravity * time differential can gain or lose momentum.. but doesn't this mean that gravity * time also thus bears the energy loss that we're gaining mechanically? So then where's the corresponding entropy increase or mass deficit? Does this slow time, or weaken gravity? One definite conclusion in all this is that the integrity of the 'zero momentum frame' - the notional frame from which momentum is held constant, such as between the earth and a bouncing ball on its surface - is actually held fast by a fundamental temporal symmetry, rather than a spatial one; IE., momentum is NOT conserved in space, but rather, that effect arises only circumstantially, via the underlying time symmetry; that is, that CoM in spatial coordinates is actually an epiphenomenon of a default time-rate-of-change of momentum symmetry.. which can nonetheless be broken by applying inertial torques in a rotating reference frame to modulate the input vs output 'G-time' periods and resulting in step-wise accumulation of non-zero momentum yields in an otherwise closed system of masses interacting freely about a common axis.. Even now, before having actually broken energy unity, i suspect that it may be possible to manipulate earth's resting momentum state at energy cost; thus we might consider applications of these principles to offset AGW, for obvious starters (or terraforming Mars / Venus!).. but once CoE is also broken it would almost seem naive not to expect a corresponding net change in the planet's resting momentum state. This will demand mitigating / controlling in some way.. ..you can see where this is going; by the same token, could a spacecraft gain linear momentum from performing asymmetric inertial interactions with its own gravity well? Precisely BECAUSE it's also gaining on-board energy from them? Furthermore, would this further increase the degree of time dilation? Buy a free-energy-warp-drive, get a free time machine, type gig? If anyone's following any of this - it's just back-of-envelope calcs; you can see there's a solution, here... that mechanical OU, from a vertically-rotating purely-mechanical system, can only have one possible solution, and this is pretty much it.. This is the biggest developing story no one else knows about.. i'm within a whisker of replicating Bessler's success, but anyone smarter grasping these principles could yet beat me to the punch.. hopefully, this time, without causing any tsunamis.. Merry Crimble anyway, folks.. may 2020 finally bring full clarity on this 300 year-old mystery..
