Vanilla 1.1.9 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

    •  
      CommentAuthorAngus
    • CommentTimeFeb 5th 2019
     
    Posted By: Vibratorplus 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.

    OK. Please include the reactive torque on the peripheral motors when the weights are "instantaneously" despun.
    • CommentAuthorVibrator
    • CommentTimeFeb 5th 2019 edited
     
    Posted By: AngusObviously a free energy inventor


    OK so we don't know each other, let's get the intro's out the way - i shoot down OU claims in my sleep. Most take seconds, hours tops. Occasionally tho you come across genuine anomalies. Most turn out to be various forms of measurement error.

    And i understand that you claim to be a physics professor - a communicator of physics, professionally skilled in the art..

    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.


    I'm sorry, are you not reading your own words? LOL who on earth do you think you're speaking to? I'll not be condescended so easily sir. Address yourself to the science or wallow in whatever muck you like, it says nothing at all of my integrity.. My motives are entirely pure (in this instance anyway). I'm measuring an anomaly. I can't make it go away (ie. can't find the error) so the next step is to try to show it to anyone else able to follow. That's where we're at.

    There's a great deal more to this than you currently realise. If you knew the full story your jaw would be hitting the floor. Let's take it easy, one small step at a time. Or not. No commitments, conditions, compulsions or compunctions. Take it or leave it. Any doubt, walk away.

    You're not compelled in any way to get involved, and do so entirely at your volition. Let's not mire ourselves in ad hom - i'm sure your intentions are honourable, but i'm really not the big bad wolf..? Nobody needs 'protecting' from me..

    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.
    Dude, if you don't enjoy this shit, no need to martyr yourself..

    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…


    ..it's all the stuff about "lining masses up on a radius" that makes no sense - it has multiple entirely different interpretations! It's an OU claim, so the object of interest is the efficiency - how much input work has been performed, and the correct way to measure it.

    The current input energy integrals are all registering a big fat 'zero' in the first example. This is not some sketch i've knocked up in Photoshop, it's the outputs of the standard equations of motion, being metered in real-time.

    It's an actual measurement, not a mere 'prediction' - a simulation, calculating the output energy twice, by two independent routes, with zero deviation.

    The output energy cannot be wrong, since 16 kg-m²-rad/s embodied as an MoI of 8 kg-m² @ 2 rad/s can only have 16 J of KE, by definition.

    So the input work integrals must be wrong. There is simply no other alternative point of error.


    Now for the gruesome details.

    The initial diagram with the big and and the little circles is incomprehensible without considerably more explanation.
    LOL what don't you understand?

    There's no stupid questions - maybe someone else is also struggling with the same problem; i'm here to help! Just ask.

    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.
    A 'simulation' you mean, not a diagram. It's the standard equations of motion, being plotted in real time, twice-over.

    It's also the singular subject of enquiry, so if it doesn't mean anything to you, that could be an issue..

    As I understand it the central motor drives the outer motors counterclockwise,


    Wrong.

    The central motor is only used to spin up the system. This is not shown, since it would require then taking the integral of 32,765 data points to show the 8 J of work being done by the motor - which takes all the punch outa the demo, if it's even possible to fit into a gif animation..

    Instead the sim begins with the system in motion already, having been spun up by that motor already - so all of its work is already done. It's coasting for a further 90° (applying no torque), then switches off entirely.

    This is all spelled out in the first paragraph - how are you supposed to evaluate the claim without reading it?

    For your benefit, here it is again, this time omitting the central motor entirely (and the plain-text explanation, since you're willfully ignoring it anyway):



    The orbiting motors are either counter-rotating at equal speed to the central rotor, or else locked to it in the "one in, one out" configuration.

    Ie. their velocity is either that of the central rotor, only in reverse sign, or else, zero (ie. 'locked').


    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.
    They still have orbital angular momentum. No axial angular momentum tho. That gets transferred to the orbital plane when their real rotation ceases.

    The value of angular momentum is (4m) omega R ^2.


    Sorry, that reads as complete gibberish to me. The value of angular momentum is 16 kg-m²-rad/s, and is maintained throughout. Both it, and its components, are clearly metered. What is the supposed benefit of trying to obfuscate the quantity? It's initially an MoI of '16' at 1 rad/s, so has 16 kg-m²-rad/s of momentum. MoI then halves to '8', so speed doubles to 2 rad/s, and so we still have all 16 kg-m²-rad/s. The whole point of the SI system is that everyone can understand one another.. mr 'science communicator'..



    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.


    Well OK, yes - you've got the thrust of it; momentum is changing by a factor of two!

    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.
    That's begging a non-sequitir, surely, but yes, i quite agree with the conclusion you're pushing (if not the grammar - "yes it doesn't"? - starting to worry for your pupils here).

    The ice-skater performs work against CF force when pulling her limbs inwards to accelerate the pirouette, and the integral of that force times displacement precisely equals her rise in rotKE.

    Here however the input work causing the MoI change is torque times angle.

    The problem is, we cannot measure any torque. It's as if the torque supplied by the motors has caused another torque, equal in sign and magnitude! Some kind of instantaneous - reactionless - "inertial torque"... ie. the kind of torque one only encounters when changing MoI... which we've just done, by switching the motors on... which caused orbital speed to instantly double, and with it, rotational KE..


    ..IOW, some kind of 'reactive counter-torque' was produced by the motor torque, which fully subsidised their torque contribution with an identical one..?

    That's what appears to be the inescapable conclusion. That's why i'm here, showing it to you.

    If the weights and discs are rotating as a unit, then to make the small discs nonrotating you must decelerate them, which involves energy.


    Yes, all three rotors begin with 1 rad/s (anticlockwise) velocity. The two masses parked at dead center tho are effectively eliminated from the equation, since they're left free to rotate about their own axes, and, as you've already noted, this means that no torque is ever applied to them. So the system MoI is simply that of the two outer masses.

    When the motors fire however, those two outer ones are decelerated by the same degree the inner one are accelerated - momentum's conserved and just changes plane.

    Ask yourself - how would you go about measuring the work done? The energy you think both me and the sim are missing; can it be measured?

    How is it managing to get past the torque * angle metric?

    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.
    On that flat trace torque * angle plot?

    OK, so.. uhh.. what torques are you identifying, there, exactly?

    You're right that the axial angular momentum is converted into orbital angular momentum, but the speed increase is caused by CoAM in response to the MoI halving - to suggest otherwise is to invoke a violation of CoAM - ie. that we could halve MoI in a closed system and not see a corresponding rise in velocity?

    If angular momentum is conserved (and it so is), then it is CoE that is subordinate to CoM, not the other way around. If MoI halves then the system cannot hang around waiting for an energy source to catch up - speed compensates instantly - without delay!

    It is intriguing that you consider CoAM 'magical'.. it's just the classic 'ice-skater effect', except now the radial translation's optional..

    You're cornering yourself into the conclusion that the motor torque * angle meter must be wrong. Which is fine, but leaves the question as to how and why unresolved.. so it's a potential line of enquiry, rather than a solid conclusion at this point. In the same boat as me, basically. Where's' the error tho?

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

    Umm non sequitir again - "spontaneity is conditional upon work"? That's non-sensical isn't it?

    You highlight the word "instant" as if this is the error you've identified - yet the alternative could only be a CoM violation; a delayed change in velocity after an MoI change, ie. a non-constant product? "It isn't instantaneous" you say, and yet it happens in zero time - between consecutive simulation frames. A binary change in MoI causes a binary change in velocity and thus KE. Whether the input work integral was positive, negative or zero is incidental, but if it's positive then where is it? Why's it invisible? That's the question.

    "Work" is an empirical term - as you'll doubtless know far better than i - per the 'work / energy equivalence principle' - essentially, the 'work done' or 'energy spent' / 'PE available' are all given by the product of force and displacement / torque and angle.

    So what is this work you propose, that violates the work / energy equivalence principle? Why can't it be detected?

    Here's a picture


    OK so this is maybe why it could've helped to try understand what you were trying to do, by reading the instructions..

    ..your orbital radii are too small, so your inner masses are always part of the orbital MoI, hence your example cannot achieve the MoI-halving effect. You also omitted any indications of the axial bearings.

    You also omitted any MoI calcs, speeds, momentum or KE calcs, so not sure what you hoped to show here..

    Your initial conclusion's the same as mine - that the motor must be supplying the KE rise - which is a solid hypothesis to work from. So, why is the torque component of the work integral registering zero?

    Again, it's plotting motor torque on the y-axis, and angle on the x. There's no error possible in the actual construction of the meter, and precisely that same meter produces a nice curve integral that solves to unity for all other interactions. So, the question you're begging is, why's it a flat trace in this instance?

    That's surely the only question that matters..
  1.  
    As soon as I read "binary change in velocity" I stopped reading, since such an event requires infinite energy.
    •  
      CommentAuthorAngus
    • CommentTimeFeb 5th 2019
     
    Look up the figure of speech called "enallage".

    I haven't claimed anything about myself. SInce you claim you shoot down OU ideas in your sleep, perhaps you should take a nap and reconsider this one.

    I haven't the interest to plough through all that shit again. The system gives up energy when you spin down the weights and sucks it up on the other half of the cycle, ignoring motor efficiency.

    Enough, zut alors!
    • CommentAuthorVibrator
    • CommentTimeFeb 6th 2019
     
    Posted By: Angus
    Posted By: Vibratorplus 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.

    OK. Please include the reactive torque on the peripheral motors when the weights are "instantaneously" despun.
    What part of "Motor Torque times angle" don't you understand?

    I've had to explain it to you repeatedly already, mr 'professor'..

    You're looking at a direct reading of the motor torque!

    It's registering "zero"!!! That's why i've bought it here!!! Argh, the effort!

    By "reactive torque on the peripheral motors" you presumably mean "counter-torque applied by the motors to the central rotor"? How would you like this presented, if not in the form of torque * angle?

    I could offer you torque times angular velocity times time instead? It produces exactly the same integral tho - flat zero.

    Just say in plain english what you want measured and how. Remember, it's a physics sim, so it's calculating everything itself independently of the meters i've made there. Its results are shown in the "kinetic() - radial ½mV²" trace, and mine - constructed from the meters you see there - is the "½Iw²" trace. As you can see, they're in perfect agreement. But i do not tell the sim the laws of physics / mechanics / kinematics - that's the whole point of using a physics sim. That's all taken care of by its own low-level calculus, untouched by moi. So i do not 'code in' the counter-torques - the sim produces those automatically, that's its whole raison d'etre.

    "Torque" is, generally, measured as "angular force" - we could alternatively derive it from MoI times angular acceleration, except here the "angular acceleration" is either "zero" or else "infinity" depending on your PoV..

    The only way to tease out the counter-torque component would be to deduct the torque component, since we know they're equal and opposite, but we also know that the inertial torque component is equal, and that it's also reactionless, so we wouldn't get the corresponding counter-torque until MoI flips back again..

    In short, the instant the motors fire, there's three torques - motor torque, its associated counter-torque, and then the inertial torque per the ice-skater effect. They're all equal in magnitude, but two of then are of the same sign, and one is opposing. So the motor torque and its counter-torque cancel out, leaving just the inertial torque.

    The system duly accelerates, but momentum hasn't increased because MoI has halved.

    The equality of the motor torque and counter-torque can be demonstrated in another sim - likewise, conservation of AM - and i could similarly sim the inertial torque by changing mass radius, but this is all trivialities. Their combined effect is the object of interest, and what you're seeing here.

    Make a coherent request and i'll comply with it.. the torque's registering as "zero", that's the problem. If you're asking me the reciprocal of zero - without rigorously checking, i'm guessing it's as near-as makes no difference to "zero".
    •  
      CommentAuthorAngus
    • CommentTimeFeb 6th 2019
     
    TLDR
    • CommentAuthorVibrator
    • CommentTimeFeb 6th 2019
     
    Posted By: Andrew PalfreymanAs soon as I read "binary change in velocity" I stopped reading, since such an event requires infinite energy.
    And yet, there it is in the sim - being calculated both by the sim itself (completely independently of me), and also via the meters i've strung together there, using all the basic relevant formulas. Both sets of results are fully consistent with one another.

    Besides, think about the alternative:

    • MoI is cut in half when the motors fire

    • The corresponding velocity rise takes finite time

    • Thus for a period, momentum is not conserved!

    Net momentum would have to dip down, then rise back up, no? So we'd be invoking "time-variant net momentum".

    CoM applies at lightspeed. When the ice-skater pulls her limbs in, the velocity rise is in direct instant proportion to her MoI change. No delay.

    But it takes finite time to physical move mass inwards radially.

    Yet here, the 'exploit' is the ability to cause that same change in MoI, without having to physically retract the masses! Simply firing the motors - with the masses still at fixed axial radius - also causes the MoI to be reduced, by the same amount! Except, eliminating the need to change radius has also eliminated the finite time required to cause that MoI change. Now it's instant.


    And so velocity instantly doubles, conserving momentum at all times.


    You're not half wrong tho that this seems every bit as flabbergasting as the OU result. How can a physical lump of matter 'flip' between physical speeds without accelerating between them? WTAF? :)


    So yes, the causes - and physical legitimacy - of this particular aspect is absolutely compelling stuff. All the data suggests a physical build should replicate this outcome, as head-twistingly incredible as that sounds..

    As to whether it's really "infinite acceleration", or just "zero acceleration phase", i guess is a matter for a philosophers..
    • CommentAuthorVibrator
    • CommentTimeFeb 6th 2019 edited
     
    Posted By: AngusLook up the figure of speech called "enallage".


    Aha so it's clever to speak gibberish. Me so stupid!

    I haven't claimed anything about myself. SInce you claim you shoot down OU ideas in your sleep, perhaps you should take a nap and reconsider this one.
    I'm sorry i thought someone said you were a physics professor (obviously mistaken)- but how long should i sit on it if i can't find the error - forever? I've given it long enough.

    I haven't the interest to plough through all that shit again. The system gives up energy when you spin down the weights and sucks it up on the other half of the cycle, ignoring motor efficiency.
    Uh.. motor efficiency's the whole point tho?

    Enough, zut alors!
    Yes i think we've heard quite enough from you already..
    • CommentAuthorVibrator
    • CommentTimeFeb 6th 2019
     
    Posted By: AngusTLDR
    IE. "i have the attention span of a gnat and struggle with basic empirical concepts".

    Thank you for your stellar contributions all the same.
    •  
      CommentAuthorAngus
    • CommentTimeFeb 6th 2019
     
    TLDR
    • CommentAuthorVibrator
    • CommentTimeFeb 6th 2019
     
    Posted By: Andrew PalfreymanAt least Turd does not confess to being a complete idiot.
    All that matters is whether he knows he's one or not. Admitting it is just trumpeting the advantage (of knowing, that is)..

    I'm acknowledging - unconditionally - that human error is all but a statistical certainty.

    If it isn't in error, then other folks need to know about it.

    If it is - as expected - then no harm done. Just another one for the pile.

    The laws of physics don't give a shit about our egos... i'm trying (evidently, really badly) to follow 'the method' here..
    • CommentAuthorVibrator
    • CommentTimeFeb 6th 2019
     
    Posted By: AngusTLDR


    Posted By: AngusTLDR


    Posted By: AngusTLDR


    Posted By: AngusTLDR


    Someone's getting emotional!

    Wanna link up for a drink? I'm in London.. PM me the time & place..

    If there was an 'ignore' button, you'd be on mine already sunshine..

    Science = measuring shit. Fuck-all to do with onanistic ego-stroking. Put up or shut up.
    • CommentAuthorVibrator
    • CommentTimeFeb 6th 2019
     
    Posted By: BigOilRepIt's good to see Vibrator hasn't become less verbose. Or stopped walking that line between passive aggressive and overt aggression.
    Hi BoR! Sorry if i've ignored you! Glad to see you're in rude health, and your usual caustic self (you know that's why we love ya)!
    • CommentAuthorVibrator
    • CommentTimeFeb 6th 2019 edited
     
    Posted By: Andrew PalfreymanGood job Angus


    Err.. you sure?

    Posted By: Angus"The angular momentum is (4 m) omega R"


    Which he then "corrected" to "R²"...

    Angular momentum has dimensions of angular inertia times angular velocity, and so units of kg-m²-rad/s.

    "Omega" (small omega) is the symbol for angular velocity (although no one says or writes "omega" except cut'n'paste fantasist wannabe's). What's "4 m" but the radius, presumably? The mass is only 1 kg so it can't mean that. But then, what's capital "R"? Lower-case "r" might mean "radius", but now he also wants to square it..

    So if "4 m" = "4 meters radius", and then he's multiplying that by angular velocity ("omega"), and then that by radius again, only squared this time..


    And yet throughout this slapstick hilarity, the actual momentum AND its components are clearly displayed with graphs and numbers, in standard kg-m²-rad/s form.. you can see the MoI and speed at all times...

    Duh.. the guy's an imbecile. All the moreso for thinking he's smart.

    Think for yourself..

    ..or better yet, use a calculator!
    •  
      CommentAuthorgoatcheez
    • CommentTimeFeb 6th 2019
     
    There is no such thing as torque. Torque does not exist.
    •  
      CommentAuthorAngus
    • CommentTimeFeb 6th 2019
     
    What are you torquing about?
    •  
      CommentAuthoroak
    • CommentTimeFeb 6th 2019 edited
     
    Posted By: VibratorScience = measuring shit.

    For a scientist to want to spend time on a project (measuring shit, etc.) requires some hope that the outcome will be of interest. The moletrap probably is not a good bet for you.

    It appears this place still exists:
    https://www.overunity.com/
  2.  
    Posted By: oak
    Posted By: VibratorScience = measuring shit.

    For a scientist to want to spend time on a project (measuring shit, etc.) requires some hope that the outcome will be of interest. The moletrap probably is not a good bet for you.

    It appears this place still exists:
    https://www.overunity.com/



    Er... science is a whole lot more than just "measuring shit".

    It's a way of reasoning about the world, and testing the reasoning through forming hypotheses and examining them empirically. Much more could be and has been said about the nature of the Scientific Method and the utility of science as a method of exploring the world. One might even include the fact that the tools of science include practical mathematics, and indeed science forms the justification for much of mathematics which would otherwise be useless for anything except the amusement of mathnuts.


    Now, I've had one or two thoughts since last posting.

    1. The scheme seems to violate Ibison's Law. No simulation, which is properly based on Conservation of Energy (and by extension Conservation of Momenta both linear and angular) can yield an overunity result. Unless of course the sim itself is malfunctioning.

    2. Since it has been stated that two different calculation methods yield the "exact" same result, we must look deeper for the error. Back up to the point where the two different methods share the same set of assumptions. The error(s) must lie here. Assumptions should always be examined, when correct calculations yield unrealistic results.

    3. Angular momentum ("rotational inertia") and linear momentum are separately conserved. When the proverbial figure skater pulls her arms in to increase her rotation _rate_, she is doing work with her musckles. Nothing happens instantaneously. The centripetal force exerted by the skater winds up accelerating the rotation rate, through the mechanism of changing MoI.

    4. I've been threatened with being ignored by strangers on the internet before. I can't possibly describe the trauma that induces in me.

    5. Go ahead, build it. I dare you.
    •  
      CommentAuthorAngus
    • CommentTimeFeb 6th 2019
     
    Posted By: alsetalokinUnless of course the sim itself is malfunctioning.

    You charitably avoid the possibility that the sim is misused.
    • CommentAuthorBigOilRep
    • CommentTimeFeb 6th 2019
     
    Well, yeah. Vibrator's modus operandi seems to be: Piss around with a simulator until it breaks then come to the 'trap and strut around like a peacock on amphetamines.

    I'd suggest that if he's broken the simulator then he should talk to the developers - they might be intrigued enough to look into it. Or they might not give a shit either.