The La Palma eruption continues to surprise and confound: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cXhfSNFAUuk
..no longer a case of guesstimating the stored potential energy, so much as the ongoing processes apparently replenishing it. What's been bugging me for some time is that OU solutions solve themselves when input and output work / energy fields are in inertially-decoupled reference frames; IOW, when we invoke any effective workarounds for Lenz's law or Newton's 3rd and thus 1st laws more generally. For instance consider that we can largely reverse-engineer an apparent 'perpetual motion gravity wheel' from first-principle inductive reasoning: • it gains angular momentum, which can only have come from gravity and time in an otherwise-closed system of masses interacting about a common axis • its energy cost / work done to buy momentum from G*t must be constant, invariant of some effective range of RPM Net input energy then scales as the per-cycle constant times the number of elapsed cycles while net output energy squares with the accumulating velocity component, the latter plot inevitably intersecting the former at some unity-threshold velocity, below which we're under-unity and above which, over. IOW the singular mechanic responsible for causing the input energy cost of buying momentum from G*t to square with rising velocity is Newton's 3rd and thus 1st laws, essentially the time-conservation of momentum, and thus time-asymmetric interactions with fundamental force fields (those reducing to a dp/dt) - buying momentum directly from a fundamental force constant and time, rather than by pushing against some external inertia - offer the potential of circumventing that constraint.. cutting the tether to the output inertial frame (ie. the lab / earth). In the diverging input inertial frame, accelerating say 1 kg-m² by 1 rad/s might only cost say 1 J, half of it dissipated to inelastic collisions each cycle, hence by the time you've input 10 J of work you've made 5 J of heat but 50 J of rotKE. The momentum source is gravity and time, and the energy source whatever constitutes 'inertia'. But likewise, we can generalise this fundamental dynamic to ANY OU system - if O>I energy, that difference has an equivalent corresponding 'velocity' component; any OU system is thus thermodynamically opened because it is inevitably gaining momentum along with energy.. that is, any ostensibly-closed system demonstrating OU (ie. a non-local energy source / sink) is, by definition, also undergoing anomalous acceleration. Assuming the amount of mass is constant, of course.. ie. the momentum gain that necessarily accompanies an OU energy gain must have equivalent components of 'mass / inertia' and/or 'velocity'. You can gain angular momentum by increasing radius without increasing speed (tho physically any change in momentum is still an effective 'acceleration'), but just assuming the net system inertia's constant, if the source is an asymmetric exchange of signed h-bar with the vacuum then the sink (the FoR of the lab) must be accelerating, it is that simple and fundamental. It's a complete coincidence that a super-volcanic eruption on NZ's Alpine fault line seems to date to around the same time Bessler was demonstrating his largest most powerful wheel on the exact polar opposite side of the globe during winter 1717. Geologists haven't yet pinned down a tighter date range. But it's also an unsettling coincidence that an unprecedented and devastating pair of tsunamis struck the NW European coastline over Christmas that winter.. Consider for instance a gravitationally-augmented inertial interaction that effectively sinks counter-momentum to G*t by employing a falling weight as a pseudo-stator; ie. apply a 9.81 N vertical force between two 1 kg masses in free-fall and only the lower one drops - the upper one hovering motionless in mid-air.. yet surely the planet is still accelerating upwards in its mutual attraction to the inertially-suspended weight, no? Cyclically gaining fixed-rate momentum this way might thus apply a vertical force component to the planet, effectively causing it to accelerate 'upwards' relative to wherever on earth's surface the gravitationally non-reciprocating exploit is deployed: planet accelerates 'upwards', fluids slosh 'downwards', bounce off the southern hemisphere and rebound back up to the point of origin of the applied linear acceleration.. Remember, there were TWO tsunamis, a fortnight apart. This was no freak atmospheric pressure system striking twice in the same locale.. but obviously a rebound wave of some kind, centered on that part of the globe for some reason. Both events - the tsunamis, and the demonstration of mechanical OU from an apparent gravity wheel - the very definition of 'unprecedented'.. coincident in time, but also consistent WRT potential means of causation.. FFWD 300 years and once again, at least one example we know of is claiming robust OU (non-local source), and damn if there ain't a lot of volcanism about, eh? Rossi's obvs not using gravity, but EM OU implies the source must be a -/+ dp/dt asymmetry with the EM force constant alpha and time instead.. so is this h-bar asymmetry vectored in some plane or axis, or safely self-cancelling perhaps? Just how sustainable IS this so-called vacuum energy / ZPE when you really get down to it? TL;DR - https://i.ibb.co/KjRJ4f8/isitsafe.jpg
