Frustration

Infinate Energy, Perpetual Motion, and why Raysium is more important than you think.

73 posts in this topic

9 minutes ago, Nameless said:

This contradicts what we've seen. Spren change based on changing perception. If perception in the future mattered the same amount as perception in the present and past, then perception wouldn't matter, because over infinite time there would be infinite different perceptions.

Spren change, functions do not.

Empty space in the CR will not exist even when people think about it and have a greater understanding of it.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Ookla the Frustrated said:

Spren change, functions do not.

Empty space in the CR will not exist even when people think about it and have a greater understanding of it.

We don't know that. In fact, why would you need ftl travel when you have the cognitive realm? it would be completely useless.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Nameless said:

We don't know that. In fact, why would you need ftl travel when you have the cognitive realm? it would be completely useless.

You still have to cross multiple planets.

Take ours for example, 24,000 miles to get to another world. Also it's pretty difficult to get there, especially when you want to bring a lot of stuff.

 

I have a WoB

Spoiler

Questioner

In the Cosmere, as space becomes more developed...*inaudible* outer space.

Brandon Sanderson

It's an interesting question that I've had to ponder. Would the space race happen more slowly because there's an alternative, or would it happen more quickly because you know other planets are inhabited. I'm not going to answer what I came up with, because it's a plot point in the books. So I'll give you a RAFO card, but that's the question to ask yourself.

Questioner

That wasn't my question! My question was, in the Cognitive Realm, with the gap between planets...

Brandon Sanderson

Oh! Will the gap between planets get larger as more people travel in between it. So, barring things like space stations, there's going to be so few minds in between, that I don't expect space to become larger because of that.

I don't expect it to be a factor, except--barring--there will be possibilities of certain regions popping up.

Legion Release Party (Sept. 19, 2018)

 and

SotD 2

Spoiler

How is Dusk going to get to another world if space is in actual size?

 

Edited by Ookla the Frustrated
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ookla the Frustrated said:

You still have to cross multiple planets.

Take ours for example, 24,000 miles to get to another world. Also it's pretty difficult to get there, especially when you want to bring a lot of stuff.

 

I have a WoB

  Reveal hidden contents

Questioner

In the Cosmere, as space becomes more developed...*inaudible* outer space.

Brandon Sanderson

It's an interesting question that I've had to ponder. Would the space race happen more slowly because there's an alternative, or would it happen more quickly because you know other planets are inhabited. I'm not going to answer what I came up with, because it's a plot point in the books. So I'll give you a RAFO card, but that's the question to ask yourself.

Questioner

That wasn't my question! My question was, in the Cognitive Realm, with the gap between planets...

Brandon Sanderson

Oh! Will the gap between planets get larger as more people travel in between it. So, barring things like space stations, there's going to be so few minds in between, that I don't expect space to become larger because of that.

I don't expect it to be a factor, except--barring--there will be possibilities of certain regions popping up.

Legion Release Party (Sept. 19, 2018)

 and

SotD 2

  Reveal hidden contents

How is Dusk going to get to another world if space is in actual size?

 

Well, that first WoB says that the cognitive realm won't change because there won't be any minds in space to perceive it, and parts of the cognitive will change and expand. So not only is it useless, to your point that some kinds of perception are timeless, it also proves that perception is bound by space. If space, then why not time?

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Nameless said:

Well, that first WoB says that the cognitive realm won't change because there won't be any minds in space to perceive it, and parts of the cognitive will change and expand. So not only is it useless, to your point that some kinds of perception are timeless, it also proves that perception is bound by space. If space, then why not time?

The CR is bound by space, the SR is not.

Which realm do Conjoined fabrials operate under?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 24.11.2021 at 5:25 AM, Ookla the Frustrated said:

If I push on the smaller gem with X newtons the larger one receives X/5 newtons

I am afraid you are approaching this fundamentally wrong. These new fabrials change distances, not forces or energy.

In al this discussions please remember that moving an object does not take energy or force. Acceleration does.

 

 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, I've not read the entire thread, so excuse me if I end up retreading covered ground.

So, standard conjoined gems gives you two objects that act as one. If each half weighs 5 grams, lifting one requires work equivalent to lifting a single ≈10 gram object. The effective mass is is M1 + M2 + Md, that is mass of gem one plus mass of gem two plus effective mass from decay, depending on distance.

We know that force is transferred between gems, nothing is being added to the system. My understanding is, post RoW, that work is split evenly between the conjoined gems. 

Thus, for a standard conjoiner, doing the work to move 5g 2 metres, will move the conjoiner 1m.

Working off this, I see no reason to assume that the underlying mechanics are any different once you start messing with the proportions.

Same basic principles, work is trasferred, nothing is added, and work is split evenly between the gems.

Say then that you have a 5g and a 25g gem. Their effective mass is ≈30g. Doing enough work to move 25g 2m moves the larger gem one metre, and the smaller gem, having the same amount of work done to it, five metres.

Both halves of the pair experience the same amount of work, but the distance they move are inversely proportional to their masses.

They are a magical pulley, simply a way to exchange work with distance, albeit a very compact one.

Assuming my interpretation to be correct, the posited device couldn't work, there's no additional force working on the second gem. They'd simply get stuck in an equilibrium.

In fact, if the device was built from perfect, indestructible materials, it makes an immovable object, as neither gem could move without moving the other a different distance, which it can't do without the materials being able to give.

I know I've disagreed with @Ookla the Frustrated on this before, and I stand by what I said then.

If the interpretation that energy is added to the system is true, it still can not work.

If the larger gem can pull the smaller forward, this means that they try to move at different speeds, otherwise the larger gem can not experience a pull. 

If this is true, each gem accelerates the other in a feedback loop. This means that materials that are not arbitrarily durable will break under the stress. As far as we know, the "entanglement" of the gems is absolute, it can not break through material stress.

We then have three points of failure, the integrity of the gems, the fabrial cage, and the physical link between the gems.

If the mounting doesn't give, the gems either crack simply from physical stress or at least one shoots out of its cage, decoupling the device.

If the cages can't give, the gems break or the mounting rips apart.

If the gems can't give, at least one rips free of its cage or the mounting rips apart.

If none of the materials give, then infinite energy is required to start it.

And even if these were solvable problems, assuming that Stormlight adds power to the system, the consumption should increase the faster it goes, to the point that Dalinar with bronze Compounding riding it, holding the Perpendicularity open forever would not be a sufficient fuel source.

I also fail to see how this could be the case, as we know that work is transferred between standard conjoiners, rather than energy added to the system. You'd expect to only have to do the work to move half the mass of the conjoined gems in that case. So the difference in mass can not work on the same principles if energy is added into the system.

 

As for the question of what the point would be if energy wasn't added to the system, it allows one to use space efficiently, for one.

Part of the problem with the Fourth Bridge is that they can only feasably have a few such ships.

If you can shrink the ground lattice to one hundreth (or whatever) the size, you can have a lot more lattices moving at the same time, as well as being able to fly far further without having to disjoin the lattice and turn around.

Or, with a few advances, you could take something like this:

Spoiler

61a009c0026cc_nedladdning(6).jpeg.85b0bf8eb45fd478a450ccf9b75e75a8.jpeg61a009c606832_nedladdning(7).jpeg.7e0a778482f7c66611221970787c6d11.jpeg

Which translates rotation into linear motion. (I think, might have the wrong terminology.)

The Rosharans can theoretically make steam engines. Or Soulcast steam turbines, if you're feeling spicy.

This can translate Stormlight into work, boiling the water using heatrials. 

So if you then set up an exchanger between rotation and linear motion, with a conjoiner on one end and a reverser on the other end, where the motion triggers the disjoining of the gems in turn, you can drive whatever is attached to the fabrials forward on both the forward and backward motion, assuming that the planes are isolated.

Pair this with the unequal paired fabrials, and you can drive something forward very fast withouth having to have a lot of motion on the driving end.

The fact that you can exchange work and distance also leads to being able to save time as well as space.

If you can move the lattice at the same speed as with equal conjoiners, what you're moving will cover more distance over the same time.

So there are lots of uses for it, even if energy isn't added to the system.

 

 

¤_¤

4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to thank everyone that has contributed to this thread, you have made alternative reasons for Different sized conjoined gems, seem if not plausible, possible.

I still find the proposed solutions unsatisfactory, but there is nothing left to do but wait and see.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/23/2021 at 0:59 PM, Ookla the unintelligible said:

I don't think that is the idea, actually. I think the idea is to add "gears" to conjoined fabrial creations. Since no force is created out of thin air, moving the fourth bridge would take basically the same amount of force to move the same speed. While they could decrease the area of the gemstones being pulled, it wouldn't be a huge advantadge if they continued to use chulls. However, they won't continue to use chulls. They will use gravity, like with Kaladin's glove. Only, instead of the maximum acceleration being limited to the acceleration of gravity, and the mininum acceleration being controlled by slowing the fall of the gemstones, the maximum speed will be capped by the size of the gemstones they can find, and the minimum speed will be controlled by having smaller gemstones falling. That makes  than conjoined fabrials somehow switching from movement conservation across distances to stormlight to kinetic energy converters. We already have lashings for that.

I definitely agree with this, it makes devices possible and portable instead of needing a plateau worth of chulls

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I'm going to shamelessly necro this thread, for I have found a sloution.

@Nameless you had an interpretation of conjoined gems that not only worked with what we had seen, but didn't allow my perpetual motion machine to work. Little did you know the amount of time I was willing to dedicate to this. So I made a perpetual motion machine using you proposed version of fabrial mechanics.

I give you Frustration's Apparatus!

First set up two pulleys, the second one must be longer than the first.

Now, on Pulley 1, attatch two gems, Gem A which is five times as large as its counterpart gem a. And gem B, which is the same size as gem b. Both are attatched to the same side and are amythist.

On Pulley 2 attatch gems a, b, and C. C is where energy leaves the system, and is the only ruby.

LIke so:

Spoiler

lyZNy1qDvmQ1s9VNMT49DxMHxHDkpX8texSaJ8mKNHwTl4hAOP1sfMtZKKGQI_sJ2rYFMkHLaa0DJXMPxkk1q69bK9pikQ4wr8OdUs_qGbkvAo2rAmNfK4R34QIR-iplKqj3MJdVBEqOXaaTTQ

The system works by dropping pulley 1, while only gems A and a are conjoined, which will bring pulley 2 up five times the distance. Fabrial clocks which were premade to calculate time then deconjoin gem A and a, and conjoin gem C for 4/5 of the fall. At which point gem C will be disconjoined and gems B and b will be conjoined. With gems B and b conjoined, the system will be brought back to it's starting point and it can be repeated. Netting you 4/5 of the energy of the fall of pulley 2 every rotation.

Edited by Frustration
2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...Wow. I am extremely impressed. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Morningtide said:

...Wow. I am extremely impressed. 

Thank you, I spent a lot of time putting it together. I'm glad you enjoyed it.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a challenge for one of you who's been following this thread and or has time to go back through this thread, AND has the time and ability to create a computer program.

Make a physics simulator to test whether this would actually work.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Frustration will give this a proper physics look over after work today.

In the meanwhile i highly recommend editing your post with some clearer nomenclature - calling the pulley systems something other than system A and B (even just system 1 and system 2) makes it a lot easier to follow

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Anomander Rake said:

@Frustration will give this a proper physics look over after work today.

In the meanwhile i highly recommend editing your post with some clearer nomenclature - calling the pulley systems something other than system A and B (even just system 1 and system 2) makes it a lot easier to follow

That would be smarter I will do that.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 23/11/2021 at 3:00 AM, Frustration said:

So in RoW we see that Raysium can allow for Conjoined gems to be of different sizes. The difference in sizes will multiply the force that the smaller gem receives.

That's not what I understood, I understood that the difference in sizes would multiply the movement of the smaller gem. And I understood would be whatever is needed to make physics not break in the process, which in the case of your fabrial means "whatever is needed to stretch/tear the steel". Which by the way would be a surprisingly useful fabrial  considering stretching a metal until right before it breaks is something that's commonly done

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Two things to get out of the way first.  One - we have no proper unit (outside of monetary terms) for gemstones, so i will use simply that when describing their size, a unit.  Two - im going to be viewing all motion as discrete and ignoring acceleration; as Nameless has already pointed out, acceleration already does enough to mess with things, so I'll poke some new holes without it if I can

So, here is my understanding of paired Rubies / Amethysts.  Lets say I have two identical 100kg cubes with a rubies set inside a face of each, a 1 unit ruby in one (block 1) and a 4 unit ruby in another (block 2).  the weight of the rubies is negligible in this case, given the sizes of he blocks.  what this means is that if i push on block 1 with 200 N of force, block 1 will receive 40 N of it, and block 2 160 N, a 1:4 split.  This encompasses two important facts - the weight of the full system is the full weight of both sides, and the gemstone sizing, relative to its pair, controls the division of forces.  If im wrong here, pls lmk

Lets break down the current process so it's easier to talk about:

We have systems (1) [A+B], (2) [a+b+C], and (3) [c]

We begin at rest, with systems (1), (2), and (3), at rest at position 0

  1. WITH A:a (1) falls 1m, (2) rises 5m in response (5 to 1)
  2. WITH C:c (2) falls 4m, (3) rises 4m in response (1 to 1)
  3. WITH B:b (2) falls 1m, (1) rises 1m in response (1 to 1)

Now, (1) and (2) are back at 0, and our output (3) is 4m higher than it was when it started!  Free energy!

The problem with the current Frustration Apparatus is it ignores mass when convenient, only looking at the relationship between the currently conjoined gems as opposed to relationship between the currently joined systems.  Consider the mass / size of the parts of the system in relative to the whole.  Each of these gems has mass, which must be accounted for.  If we use A and a, let a weight 1 unit and A 5.  Assuming a = b = c, and assuming our systems are ONLY the mentioned gems at these given masses and no additional weights, our systems weigh 6, 3, and 1 units respectively.  With the weight accounted for (and initially pulley motions not adjusted [ie drop (2) 4m]), the process looks like.

  1. WITH A:a (1) falls 1m, (2) rises 2m in response (6 to 3)
  2. WITH C:c (2) falls 4m, (3) rises 12m in response (3 to 1)
  3. WITH B:b (2) falls 1m, (1) rises .5m in response (3 to 6)

This obeys conservation of momentum, with the sum total energy of the three systems at 0, the starting value, at every point in time.  This is where additional arguments can be made about acceleration as well - my example is also idealized, moving discretely from one potential energy state to another while ignoring acceleration / deceleration - but those arguments are in the same direction im shooting.

Perhaps with some arrangement of gem sizes and system weights the device could be used for efficient energy storage and recovery, optimizing how amounts of it get moved around or such

I'm not super happy with this, feeling like I'm forgetting something poignant, but will look over it again after work!

Edited by Anomander Rake
just now realizing frust's og post doesn't have a 'c'. Is linked to C, added that to visualize the system output
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Anomander Rake said:

problem with the current Frustration Apparatus is it ignores mass when convenient, only looking at the relationship between the currently conjoined gems as opposed to relationship between the currently joined systems.  Consider the mass / size of the parts of the system in relative to the whole.  Each of these gems has mass, which must be accounted for.  If we use A and a, let a weight 1 unit and A 5.  Assuming our systems are ONLY the mentioned gems at these given masses and no additional weights, our systems weigh 6, 3, and 1 units respectively.  With the weight accounted for (and initially pulley motions adjusted [ie drop (2) 4m]), the process looks like.

  1. WITH A:a (1) falls 1m, (2) rises 2m in response (6 to 3)
  2. WITH C:c (2) falls 4m, (3) rises 12m in response (3 to 1)
  3. WITH B:b (2) falls 1m, (1) rises .5m in response (3 to 6)

This obeys conservation of momentum, with the sum total energy of the three systems at 0, the starting value, at every point in time.  This is where additional arguments can be made about acceleration as well - my example is also idealized, moving discretely from one potential energy state to another while ignoring acceleration / deceleration - but those arguments are in the same direction im shooting.

I'm not super happy with this, feeling like I'm forgetting something poignant, but will look over it again after work!

I'm almost with you, can you just fill in the math behind your calculations for me?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Anomander Rake said:

Two things to get out of the way first.  One - we have no proper unit (outside of monetary terms) for gemstones, so i will use simply that when describing their size, a unit.  Two - im going to be viewing all motion as discrete and ignoring acceleration; as Nameless has already pointed out, acceleration already does enough to mess with things, so I'll poke some new holes without it if I can

We actually have the weight of each class of sphere, the highest is about 0,4g.

I think I have found a way to take forces and acceleration into account, at least in cases where the rigid solid hypothesis holds true (which is not the case of Frustration's original idea). The idea is that I assume that the strength applied on each gemstone is not necessarily equal to the strength accelerating that gemstone then uses Newton's principles to find out what these strength actually are.

Spoiler

fabrial.png.56c87796cbbb4b0068e3a65606e790b8.png

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

5 hours ago, Frustration said:

I'm almost with you, can you just fill in the math behind your calculations for me?

say less king

spoiled for large pics

Spoiler

fa1.thumb.PNG.3bd1131410c416151bb336c2286462ea.PNGfa2.thumb.PNG.d841b77310364d6332dd9a5a9f417373.PNG

so strictly by raising and lowering the gemstones, we shouldn't be able to cheese the system in any way.  idk if it's been mentioned in the thread, but setting something up to rack and rerack the dun and lit sphere's automatically for highstorms could be cool application of something like this - toss your duns in a bin that send them to some apparatus like that, all powered by spheres from that same storm.  or anything else that does utilize that juicy free energy XD

Edited by Anomander Rake
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Anomander Rake said:

say less king

spoiled for large pics

  Reveal hidden contents

fa1.thumb.PNG.3bd1131410c416151bb336c2286462ea.PNGfa2.thumb.PNG.d841b77310364d6332dd9a5a9f417373.PNG

so strictly by raising and lowering the gemstones, we shouldn't be able to cheese the system in any way.  idk if it's been mentioned in the thread, but setting something up to rack and rerack the dun and lit sphere's automatically for highstorms could be cool application of something like this - toss your duns in a bin that send them to some apparatus like that, all powered by spheres from that same storm.  or anything else that does utilize that juicy free energy XD

 Thank you good sir. You make a compelling argument. I am inclined to agree, the current system with only gems will not work. However I think I can fix it with a few small changes.

By attatching both sets of fabrials to large blocks, so that the total weight of each System is 100 Kg, and assuming the weight of System 3 is less than that of System 2 will result in the following

  1. System 1 will drop 1 meter and because it is exerting ~166 Kg of upwards force on System 2, System 2 will be brought up 5 meters
  2. Upon the disconjoining of gems A and a System 2 will drop 4 meters, and System 3 will move 4 meters
  3. Upon the conjoining of gems B and b both Systems 1 and 2 will have the same effective weight, however since System 2 has momentum behind it it will fall 1 meter raising System 1 by 1 meter.

I'm pretty sure that will work. And if not we can adjust gems B and b to be different sizes

However we can do more

First we mount fabrails on the top and bottom of System's 1 and 2, capable of both attracting and reppelling air. When a System falls the fabrial on the bottom will repel air, enableing both systems to fall in a vacuum. And the Fabrial on the top will attract air, making the system experience greater pressure than it otherwise would. When raising the effect will be reversed, creating a vaccum above the system, and increasing pressure bellow it.

Does that work or am I completly stupid?

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

On 5/19/2022 at 9:44 AM, Frustration said:

By attatching both sets of fabrials to large blocks, so that the total weight of each System is 100 Kg, and assuming the weight of System 3 is less than that of System 2 will result in the following

  1. System 1 will drop 1 meter and because it is exerting ~166 Kg of upwards force on System 2, System 2 will be brought up 5 meters
  2. Upon the disconjoining of gems A and a System 2 will drop 4 meters, and System 3 will move 4 meters
  3. Upon the conjoining of gems B and b both Systems 1 and 2 will have the same effective weight, however since System 2 has momentum behind it it will fall 1 meter raising System 1 by 1 meter.

How did you get that for Step 1?  If (1) and (2) are each 100 kg now, (2) should only move .25m for every 1m (1) moves if A and a are linked, it shouldn't move further.  

Quote

However we can do more

First we mount fabrails on the top and bottom of System's 1 and 2, capable of both attracting and reppelling air. When a System falls the fabrial on the bottom will repel air, enableing both systems to fall in a vacuum. And the Fabrial on the top will attract air, making the system experience greater pressure than it otherwise would. When raising the effect will be reversed, creating a vaccum above the system, and increasing pressure bellow it.

This seems reasonable, stockpile stormlight and get mechanical energy out of it.  I wonder what the optimal way to do that is

Edited by Anomander Rake
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/20/2022 at 0:12 PM, Anomander Rake said:

How did you get that for Step 1?  If (1) and (2) are each 100 kg now, (2) should only move .25m for every 1m (1) moves if A and a are linked, it shouldn't move further.

If system 2 has the smaller gem it has to move further.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.