Sorry - it seems I got the polarity of the reaction torque wrong. The reaction torque from the orbiting motors acts to increase the rotation rate of the central rotor so that the total angular momentum as seen from the central bearing (which produces no torque as its motor is free-wheeling) remains constant. Looking at your simulation it seems you have included this reaction torque as your central rotation rate does in fact double.
However I think now that what you have not counted is the energy that has to be provided to the orbiting motors in order to provide this change in rotation rate of the central rotor while "stopping" the orbiting rotors (with respect to absolute space). From the point of view of the orbital motors, their rotor/stator pairs are stationary before this action and their rotors have to be accelerated with respect to their stator to a speed of twice the original rotation rate. I suspect that this action takes exactly the 8J that gets added to the system giving a total of 16 after this action. Moving the orbiting masses to their respective orbiting centres requires no net energy. On 5/02/2019 11:03 am, John Shop wrote: Hi Vibrator, Since you NEED to know, I will point out where the fallacy lies. When the orbiting motors activate to stop the orbiting rotors from rotating, you have neglected the reaction torque of these motors. The reaction torque acts back on the central rotor, also stopping its rotation. In fact while the orbiting motors are slowing and stopping the rotation of the orbiting rotors, they are absorbing energy from the system and acting as generators producing electrical energy back into the power supply. Once they have brought the orbiting rotors to a stop, then their reaction torque will also have slowed and stopped the central rotor so that the complete system is stationary at that point in time. So the 8 joules pumped in by the central motor, is sucked back out by the orbiting motors slowing the system down leaving no energy in the system and no motion at the completion of that operation. This is just what my well educated intuition suggests will happen. However I did not do any maths and so I might have got something wrong. But at least these ideas should give you enough of a clue to unravel the mystery yourself. On 1/02/2019 6:34 am, Vibrator ! wrote: 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 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..
