I'll give an overview of the exploit here: • FoR divergence depends on inertial isolation
The body that you wish to accelerate for discount work expenditure must gain momentum without inertial interaction with its environment. This thus precludes conventional inertial interactions per N2, in which force is applied between inertias, invariably incurring N3 and the equivalence of momentum and counter-momentum deltas, ultimately enforcing N1. Because the energy cost of continual acceleration squares with the accumulating (squaring) displacement over which a given force must be applied to continue accelerating, accelerating a body by applying a force between it and any kind of stator or external / ground inertia inherently enforces PE:KE symmetry. The only way out of that cage is to source and sink momentum directly to force * time asymmetries. An example of this kind of interaction is the technique we learn intuitively to gain momentum on the park swings as kids - because angular momentum is the product of angular inertia (mass times radius squared) and angular velocity, and conserved, changes in mass-radius from axis incur compensatory and reactionless angular accelerations and decelerations that conserve net angular momentum. However with this particular technique, the input workload is mass displacement against centrifugal force, which squares with angular velocity right alongside the rotational KE value of the momentum gains. CoP of work done against CF force is obviously thus speed-dependent, and inherently energy-conservative. Yet this is not the only technique for gaining height and KE on a swing, nor indeed the fundamental principle itself, which instead simply reduces to an inbound vs outbound ±F*t asymmetry (really, ±acceleration times time, or a ±dp/dt asymmetry).. For instance, here's an alternative technique: • drive the swing by holding a motorised flywheel vertically ..so spin up the flywheel in the same angular direction you're descending, and its corresponding counter-torque will slow your descent, increasing your soak time under the constant acceleration, and thus boosting your net momentum gain from the given drop. Halfway down, de-spin it, so that it comes to a halt as you reach the bottom of the swing. Then spin it up to the same speed in the opposite direction, again despinning it when halfway up, so that it again comes to a halt at you return to top dead center. These accelerations and deceleration are in principle conservative, with no inherent need for dissipation. Angular inertia is speed-invariant - 1 kg-m² is always 1 kg-m², no matter how fast your FoR is already rotating - and a relative acceleration of 1 kg-m² by 1 rad/s always costs half a Joule, regardless of your RPM in relation to anything else. Swinging using this technique thus has a potential to break unity that work done against CF force does not. The final breakthrough is to swing not against gravity, but G-force - CF force - in a powered rotation. If the rotation providing the CF force is not powered, all internal angular momentum gains come at the expense of the rotation providing the CF force, conserving net system momentum. If however the rotation is powered to run at a constant speed, whether that's by an over-balancing system of weights, or even just a simple motor, the internal momentum gains become effectively real and absolute. And in this way, it thus becomes possible to fix the unit-energy cost of momentum to a speed-invariant value that diverges from its KE value in the absolute / ground FoR. • the state of inertial isolation must be maintained during the harnessing of the gains The over-unity body is away in its own little FoR, which breaks energy equivalence with all other velocity frames. It is thus inherently sensitive to any kind of grounding with the absolute FoR - basically, touch it and you kill it. The gains must thus be harnessed via non-contact methods - again, without direct inertial interaction with an external inertia in the common FoR. This has been accomplished in the current solution by performing work against CF force when rising back up and inwards, thus incurring positive inertial torque from the ice-skater effect; the central motor holding the rotation speed constant then becomes a generator, harnessing the KE gain as a PE gain. I must emphasise at this point that "motor" and "generator" in this sense have no more to do with electronics than chemistry; they're simply angular joints controllable for speed, torque, angle or acceleration, hence we're only talking the language of N2, its inversions and their angular equivalents; ie. the gain is being recorded as force * displacement (and in triplicate, as KE, and also as force * velocity / time). Torque, inertia, acceleration and angular displacement - mechanical physics - not electrical engineering. Latest test this afternoon found that by shortening the radius of the divergent FoR it's possible to limit the amount of the KE gain harnessed as PE this way, keeping it as KE on the over-unity body instead. This in turn allows the gain to be correlated back to the velocity component of the anomalous momentum delta - so you can see the gain, and what's causing and embodying it, together in an empirical way. Prior to the current 'sustainable' dual-rotor config i was testing single rotors; immediately upon confirming OU i attached one of these to a virtual planet - a mass heavy enough to be all but stationary, yet its motion and position still discernable to many digits precision - and found that it continually accelerates whilst running. Upon ceasing the interaction, the planet then continues to coast at its new angular and linear velocities. You can see the results of that test here: https://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=9300&start=15 ..hence why i've now moved to dual reciprocating systems which mutually self-cancel these stray momenta. Ultimately, we have a CoE break contingent upon an effective CoM break, with the exploit confirmed at every stage in that process. The experiment confirms the theory, literally mechanising the maths of OU. This isn't a false-positive, it's the real deal.. On Mon, Dec 4, 2023 at 1:36 PM Vibrator ! <mrvibrat...@gmail.com> wrote: > In the last config the best CoP seemed to converge to around 3.5. > > Bessler indicated CoP's of 4 were possible, in one passage seemingly > implying a factor of 16: > > Der wird ein großer Künstler heißen, > Wer ein schwer Ding leicht hoch kann schmeißen, > Und wenn ein Pfund ein Viertel fällt, > Es vier Pfund hoch vier Viertel schnellt. x > Wer dieses aus kann spekuliren, > Wird bald den Lauf perpetuiren; > > "He will be called a great craftsman, who can easily/lightly throw a > heavy thing high, and if one pound falls a quarter, it shoots four pounds > four quarters high." > > The latest sim which i finished last night, is designed to be infinitely > adjustable, so i'm going to use it to explore the gradient, find its upper > bounds. > > As mentioned though, the gain is constant per cycle, so net gain is just > the per-cycle gain multiplied by the number of elapsed cycles. > > Any help getting from here to the first devices would be cool - i'm just > an obsessive hobbyist with no idea how to get this where it needs to be.. > This warrants serious attention! > > On Mon, Dec 4, 2023 at 9:28 AM Jürg Wyttenbach <ju...@datamart.ch> wrote: > >> We all wait for the first device with COP >2! >> >> >> J.W: >> >> On 04.12.2023 09:59, Vibrator ! wrote: >> > Just a heads up for anyone interested - i've succeeded in my long-held >> > objective of cultivating and harvesting a divergent inertial frame. >> > >> > The energy density is whatever you want - just make up some high >> > number and you're good - and power density is basically that number >> > times how many cycles a second you'd like. >> > >> > As predicted, it's also a reactionless thruster, breaking both CoM and >> > CoAM. Latest version of the interaction runs opposing systems in >> > tandem, mutually self-cancelling all stray momenta. >> > >> > If you'd struggle to believe there was sufficient complexity within >> > classical mechanics for the possibility of over-unity to go unnoticed >> > for three centuries - that within Newton's three laws, plus gravity, >> > there could lay hidden the kernel of an interface between the >> > corporeal and sublime - i would not argue with you.. >> > >> > ..yet the fact is, gravity isn't even involved. It's just an inertial >> > interaction! >> > >> > Believe it or not, it's possible to source and sink momentum and >> > energy from and to inertia and time! >> > >> > See my thread on the BW forum - it's all sims for now, but a major >> > advance on what was previously a completely-outsider theory. >> > >> > Mechanical over-unity is no longer even an engineering problem, let >> > alone a physics one.. >> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- >> Jürg Wyttenbach >> Bifangstr. 22 >> 8910 Affoltern am Albis >> >> +41 44 760 14 18 >> +41 79 246 36 06 >> >>
