Is MoI Moment of inertia? You allude to an electrical motor, but you leave details out. The abrupt changes in the plots are non-physical.
________________________________ From: bobcook39...@hotmail.com <bobcook39...@hotmail.com> Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2019 10:28 PM To: vortex-L@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:A simple example of Mechanical Over-Unity Can you identify parameters of a Mol. What units (mass velocity length angular momentum etc ) does a Mol have. The Link provided would not allow connection with my computer, A better description of what a Mol is would help. Bob Cook ________________________________ From: Vibrator ! <mrvibrat...@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2019 2:34:15 PM To: vortex-L@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]:A simple example of Mechanical Over-Unity It looks to me like a fait accompli, but i might as well be claiming prince Albert in a can. Yet i NEED to know whether this is real or crass error. Some kind of resolution! It's just basic mechanics - force, mass & motion. I know there's people here with a good grasp of classical physics - and this really IS dead-simple - all i need is anyone confident enough in that knowledge to be prepared to 'call it', one way or the other. I'm on me lonesome here - no academic contacts whatsoever, and with the mother of all absurd claims.. What it is: - Changing MoI, whilst rotating, without performing any work against CF force. Decreasing and increasing MoI this way effectively creates and destroys rotational KE. - MoI is caused to 'flip', instantly, thus causing an instantaneous change in velocity, ie. a binary change in physical velocity, without physically accelerating, or equivalently, via an effectively infinite acceleration. - A series of Working Model sims demonstrating these results, tracking all input and output energy; the latter, calculated via two independent routes in parallel, with perfect agreement and in apparent confirmation of OU. There are two different forms of input work applied: - crude 'motors' - tho not meaningfully 'electrical'; they're simply torque controlled over angle, and so producing a "torque * angle" plot - 'linear actuators' - but again, merely the application of linear force controlled over a displacement, and again plotted accordingly So i've been taking these two integrals - at least, in those cases where's there's any input work at all - as 32,765 data points crunched with a Riemann sum via Excel. Happy to provide those if anyone wants to see 'em. Likewise, if anyone wants to see any variations / sanity checks, i can knock up more sims.. The thing is, in the most basic form of the interaction, there's no input work at all.. yet a 200% KE gain. With only a very trivial modification (gravity brought into play), the gain rises to 800% - partly because the torque * angle integral goes substantially negative.. I've solved it down to 1/10th of a microjoule, so the gain appears to be many orders over noise. Please - anyone - is this for real or have i completely lost it? https://drive.google.com/open?id=1P1tlUn7THSKZ0CjWaFHFzFtOfrYVY6Ls<https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdrive.google.com%2Fopen%3Fid%3D1P1tlUn7THSKZ0CjWaFHFzFtOfrYVY6Ls&data=02%7C01%7C%7C8153d65fe7ef452c037108d687f779a1%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636845894304852575&sdata=bSx%2FTo%2Bz6KNfDyvQMwfTfur1%2BFXg%2B3r73oWd7e80ptw%3D&reserved=0> NB: MoI switch-downs greater than factors of two are equally feasible - so we could likewise square or cube rotKE with little more difficulty.. Climbing the walls here..