Posted By: AsterixYeah, I liked watching the animation, while thinking "this is wrong".

It's the same problem with this as with other free energy/cold fusion/zero-point energy stuff. Build one and let us know how it goes. But then, that's really the only useful response to stubborn believers. One can argue the point until one is blue in the face--and yet the believer will continue to believe without testable evidence.

Don't anyone waste a second building anything until (or unless) someone else validates! Then it's two idiots' words, instead of just muggins 'ere.

I do think a build might be worthwhile if others agree, but obviously, not if it's just crass error (which it must be, right?)

With a view to taking data, of course. Proof of principle, regarding the spontaneous MoI change. That'd seem worthwhile (if singularly unimpressive to anyone unaware of its implications).

But there's few things more pathetic than a YT vid of some DIY contraption with all wires and dodgy meters poking out.. what's inside it? How are the meters being applied, and what are they measuring? BS BS BS, am i wrong?

Suppose OTOH you can see inside it - pull it apart, check precisely how it works, with all mathematical working-out displayed, that you can do yourself with Notepad, Calculator and Google? Now it's not merely some ambiguous black-box spinny thing, it's an easily comprehensible sequence of causes and effects, no? That, or fraud / error.

You don't have to look inside if you don't want to... but you can, if you like - it's all there, out in the open, no secrets, no inventions. Any dark corners i can further illuminate, just ask. Any clarifications / variations / alternative sims / sanity checks / benchmark examples / whatever, i'm at your service. If all you wanna do is yell "build it!" from the back, that's fine too, and only to be expected; If, in time, it still seems legit, and no one else beats me to it, i expect i'll try knocking up a test rig... but i don't see that as any particularly-persuasive waypoint in the validation attempt, given it's primarily a simple mathematical entity already fully revealed.. a spinny thing's yet another spinny thing, just without all the real-time telemetry you can currently see above..

It's fairly hot off the press, too - been sitting on it a few weeks so far, but i figure, just on the off-chance it IS legit, i ought to at least try showing it to someone else capable of following..

..and of course, most such people are far too sensible to waste a single synapse on such a preposterous claim in the first place, so, 'catch 22'.. You guys, for better or worse, are logically my first point of contact in the tragic comedy that is any attempt to get something like this peer-reviewed. My (ahem) 'peers' (yeah i don't like it any more than you, but it is what it is). So friggin' rebuke me or ridicule me, whatever passes for 'review' round here.. i'm asking for it. Open goal. Best shots. Don't pull 'em. Seriously.

How have i fucked up such an elementary measurement, so monu-fucking-mentally? Fill yer boots & knock yourselves out. Where's there even room for error?

Posted By: alsetalokin

Well i take mine as "mass times angular velocity squared times radius", then multiply that by radial velocity to obtain the rather nifty-sounding quantity "centrifugal power", then integrate that over time to get "CF/CP work done". Works a treat, giving precisely the same result as the basic F*d integral being pulled in the above sims. Nice to calculate everything twice independently.

I left that metric out of the above sims to avoid over-complicating the presentation, but left in the dual calcs of output energy (since it doen't require actually taking the integrals; ie. outputting the data, copying into Excel and doing the Riemann sum, which would be pushing it for a gif animation)..


Nice to see you nice, anyhoos..

..whadya reckon to this 'ere BS?

Posted By: VibratorUh, did you actuallyreadwhat he said?

Yes, actually, and it makes sense to me as well. In your sim, I believe that you are underestimating the amount of energy that you will have to spend in order to do what you propose with the orbital rotors. I suspect that the error lies in failing to account for all necessary expenditures of energy to facilitate the transfer of momentum / energy from the orbital to the axial radius that you propose. I suspect that this lies in a failure to account for the rotation of the wheels that the initially stationary axial rotors are carrying, as per Angus his post ...

Obviously a free energy inventor is unwilling to take the simple answer “it is impossible by everything we know, which is a lot more than you do”. If one is feeling generous one provides a simple example showing why his gadget doesn’t work. However, since this is usually framed in some way he doesn’t recognise, he will reject it and insist on a detailed explanation of why his wrong picture is wrong.

To give Vibrator his due he hasn’t insisted he has found the holy grail. But he has asked for that detailed explanation. This is a tedious business. It requires one to try to reconstruct the wrongness. It is worse than marking papers because at least some of the papers may be correct. It is an unwelcome chore usually designated to the most junior guy you can find in the lab. I guess that’s me for now, so here we go.

First of all, Vibrator is quite correct. I did leave off the square on the radius in the calculation of angular momentum. Mea culpa. My excuse is that I was using my cell phone and typing in bed during a bout of insomnia. Not at one’s best…

Now for the gruesome details.

The initial diagram with the big and and the little circles is incomprehensible without considerably more explanation. So I pass on to the text “A Simple Example of Mechanical Overunity” which has a little diagram that seems to mean something to me. As I understand it the central motor drives the outer motors counterclockwise, and the outer motors drive the masses clockwise at the same rate. Under this condition there is no angular momentum due to the outer discs, which can be considered as point masses attached to the inner disc. The value of angular momentum is (4m) omega R ^2. In the condition where the four masses are locked into a straight line, the overall angular momentum is (2m)omega (2R)^2 which is twice as much.

The problem Vibrator raises is that the kinetic energy in the two conditions doesn’t match. because the rotational velocity is squared in calculating KE and it isn’t for momentum. The answer is YES IT DOESN’T. The KE is in fact different in the two conditions because you must put energy in or take it out to achieve them.

If the weights and discs are rotating as a unit, then to make the small discs nonrotating you must decelerate them, which involves energy. In the process they give up their individual angular momentum to the system via the countertorque applied by the motor when it does the deceleration. That is why the system speeds up - it isn’t just magic because the moment has been reduced. You can identify out the torques that do it.

The error is in the statement “the instant the orbiting motors activate the orbital angular momentum ceases to be a function of the masses’ actual radii”. It isn’t instantaneous. It requires work.

Here's a picture

It's good to see Vibrator hasn't become less verbose. Or stopped walking that line between passive aggressive and overt aggression.

Thanks. Now can I take off this civilised veneer?

Posted By: alsetalokinWhat, are you looking to hire a consultant, or do you expect knowledgeable and skillful people to work for you for free?

We research OU claims. Here's a doozy. Take it or leave it.

I'm also sharing it elsewhere, and have very low expectations of what to expect anyway (typical cargo-cult efforts, mostly), so you're either interested, or not. I'm here offering you my findings - and yes it's the epitome of absurd claims, but that's why we do this shit - no secrets, full disclosure, plain-english descriptions with diagrams - plus i'm willing to do more work if anyone wants to see certain control cases or other variations simmed, or further clarifications or whatever, just ask.

Surely you can appreciate that a proper understanding and critique of your work will require at least as much work as you expended putting it together.

It's torque times angle and force times displacement. You can Google the standard terms for MoI, momentum and KE.

You don't even need to be able to solve those basic three-variable equations yourself - just Google for online calcs that solve shit for you. Piece of piss.

Momentum's conserved; 16 kg-m²-rad/s of it, comprised of an MoI of 16 kg-m² at 1 rad/s, gets squeezed into an MoI half the size, so velocity instantly doubles, and with it, KE. The input work integrals all register zero work done. The reason for this is the inertial torque caused by changing the MoI, and so doubling the speed. It's the 'ice-skater effect', in zero time, and without actually pulling any mass inwards against axial CF.

So it's basically a KE-doubler. Whatever the system's peak KE when the MoI is halved, it's instantly doubled.

However MoI changes greater than factors of two are equally trivial. So we can just as easily square the net KE per cycle, or cube it, whatever.. simply as a function of the change in MoI.

All you need to know is that the system begins and ends with the same momentum, the same GPE, and zero input work detected.

Obviously if it's in error then those two input integrals must be at fault. That should be incredibly simple to point out. Again, i'm willing to do all the legwork. You tell me what you think needs measuring, and i'll measure it in as many independent ways as we can all think up. I'll show all working-out, no one else needs lift a finger.

Couldn't be simpler or less demanding (nor more rewarding if legit).

So while i'd appreciate any genuine interest.. like i say, looow expectations.. ;)

If you just wanna disprove it, and are able to do so, go for it.

If you just wanna disprove it but are comically incapable of actually doing so, my 'ignore' list grows one name longer but other numpties will doubtless appreciate your efforts..

You may be casting pearls before swine, but we here are some pretty sophisticated swine indeed, and it's a lot of work separating the real pearls from the mudclods ... even for swine. Note that I am here taking for granted (often a big mistake) that you and your previous consultants have eliminated all basic errors from your analysis. You don't need a physicist or mathematician to track down a sign error or a misplaced decimal point, I hope. Nor do you need an engineer or machinist to tell you that some things simply cannot be built as the designer hoped.

Concise descriptions are given on the 1st page.

Not interested in point-scoring - 'trappers have an opportunity to get out ahead on the latest absurd claim, or sit back and let others beat 'em to the punch. You're not currently the front-runners. It's not hard physics, there's no innovations whatsoever, just momentum, and KE. If that seems too complicated, best step aside and find something more suitable.

As for the possibility of errors - it is THE archetypal 'impossible' claim, so of course it's in fucking error. I am a complete idiot (seriously,you wouldn't believe). Worse - every single previous attempt has failed - so add "pathological failure" in there too. And every previous time i thought i had it ("for real, this time!") it turned out to be yet another stupid error - and all errors are 'stupid' when you're crying wolf on something like this. Trashing forever any possible shred of future credibility..

Caveat emptor, times a million.

Just leave it mate, don't worry about it. Anything else would probably be a better use of your time.

That's a positively Trumpian level of empty bluster.

Depends ... much of what he says constitutes a constructive confession.