Thank you - but sorry, what's "MEP"? Last night i fully resolved the gain principle - it WASN'T caused by the spin and brake cycles sinking counter-momentum to gravity as intended.
The basis of the system is an interaction that moves a pair of masses across the diameter of a rotating axis, whilst controlling the distance between them such that the system's moment of inertia is held constant throughout; this accommodated the asynchronous nature of the spin and brake cycles in relation to the GPE cycles sinking their counter-momenta, however it also turned out to be the cause of the energy gains when the spin'n'brake cycles were disabled for a control run.. Over the last week, i established that this constant-MoI radial translation was creating AND destroying energy on every full radial translation; it had been consistently creating slightly more energy than that destroyed, yielding the net gains being measured.. however the other night i finally realised what was going on, and that the destruction phase is entirely optional and unneccesary - we can just perform the gain phase and have done with it! In the high-res sim below, gravity is disabled (nothing whatsoever to do with it!): https://i.ibb.co/XszMzSM/v3.gif Here's the digits for that run: actuator = 0.378631362 solenoid = -0.320586999 motor = 0.499796942 net input = 0.557841305 KE rise = 0.75190 diff = +0.194058695 0.75190 / 0.557841305 = 1.35x unity Again, the inverse, 'destruction' phase is entirely optional and voluntary - there's simply no reason to incur it; the gain there is free and clear. The free energy term is '2nd-derivative centrifugal-PE' from a constant-MoI radial translation under angular acceleration. Normally, an output of centrifugal potential energy causes a proportionate increase in radius and thus MoI, causing angular velocity to decrease to conserve net angular momentum (the 'ice skater effect'); the drop in rotational KE from that angular deceleration being precisely equal to the CF-PE harnessed. So, if we take out 1 J of CF-PE, we expect a 1 J drop in rotational KE of the system.. ..but here, CF-PE is being output WITHOUT causing any MoI change. Hence, no deceleration, no rotKE drop, no inertial torque induced, and no mechanical transference of loads between the output CF work integral and the input motor work driving the angular acceleration - so the motor simply sees a constant 1 kg-m² MoI, being smoothly accelerated up to 1 rad/s, for a cost of ½ J, exactly per the KE equation ½Iw²... the increasing gap between the masses as they cross the diameter has netted an output of PE from the increasing CF force (due to the motor acceleration), even though no change in system MoI has occurred! Clear-cut mechanical OU. 135% in one smooth action.. Basically... Grimer: 1 Everyone else: 0 (incl. me) Nothing to do with gravity. Nothing to do with the efficiency of accumulating reactionless momentum. Apparently, thus, having no discernible adverse effects on the planet's resting momentum state, as feared from the intended scheme (phew, but am i pure evil or what?).. I've taken the day off work, just to try to take all this in... i'm thinking a long soak in the tub with a tall scotch.. but beyond that..? You currently have front row seats on the maddest game in town, guys.. Like i say, safe to read the thread backwards just to get up to speed on the current state of affairs.. only need to read it forwards for context. Any suggestions need to take reasonable account of my circumstances - i still depend on the day job, for now, so have a few hours a night at most, for this.. What next? Try to get funded (how)? Crank email someone - (Royal Society, Puthoff, Tajmar or etc.?) What does one do, generally, upon discovering mech OU? Besides the scotch, and maybe a stale cigar out the fridge? On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 2:11 AM Terry Blanton <hohlr...@gmail.com> wrote: > I sent it to a friend and co-worker who is a MEP whiz. I'll post his > response here. >
