Contributions and Arguments

---

An argument we had to deal with during our latest research efforts, made by a university professor:

• “In simple terminology, it is ( the cylinder) proposed to carry out the compression stroke separately and in parallel with the power stroke by means of a secondary piston. This, it is argued, will have the effect of increasing the number of power strokes in a given time. So for example if we double the number of the power strokes then in principle the power will double (not fully correct since there will be other induced losses and also the secondary piston will absorb power to function”.  and "    So far the engineering   argument appears  reasonable though the proposal continues to make claims regarding performance and emissions that are at best unjustified and in my opinion unrealistic  "

And our argument was,  

•   a second floating piston, can not absorb power, because it is motion is not dependent on its mechanical link to the crankshaft. When ignition happens, a strong flue gas pressure force is released and applied to the crankshaft piston surface,as well as to the Floating Piston surface, Also,
•  for a given level of power output at certain speed, when we decrease the RPM by half, the friction responsible for about 30% of a non-usefull thermal output, will decrease by more than half, down to 10%-15%
•  the thermal efficiency enhances at lower RPM and translates as lower fuel consumption.
•  compressing air every cycle rather than every other cycle means, the air flow per cycle enhances, which is responsible of enhancing air to fuel ratio and increasing torque output, and knowing that the limits of optimizing power-torque output in conventional engines is responsible for loosing more than 50% of thermal input to heat, we can now expect a better control to eliminate such loss not only for increasing engine performance but also for decreasing heat challenges.
• diesel engines are limited to maximum 4000 RPM, and a design capable of providing every stoke as a power stroke, means a diesel engine will now better scales to higher more useful engine speed.
• spark ignition engines, which are not capable of developing torque like diesel engines at lower engine speed, will enhance its torque curve in a Relative Motion engine due to enhanced brake power, and mainly due to using compression forces as a supercharge forces. It is a known art of engine design, that turbo- charging an SI engine makes it match the torque of a diesel engine.
• for all our performance gains, the assumption by the professor of induced losses is simply wrong and  his statement that "engineering argument appears reasonable" is  great news that we did not take for granted. Claims can only be justified by simulation and not by opinion.

 All of our initial cylinder simulations, and product visualization tests, started around May of 2017. It confirmed that our friend's conclusion held a good logic, where no matter how the second piston shape looked like, inserting an object into a high pressure compartment in a hybrid mode, will utilize an outside source of energy or deduct its share of motion energy according to Pascal as a Function of Position, as for example, two pistons moving under combustion forces in opposite directions, a second piston will split an expansion distance and a power stroke energy with a first piston. 

 In 2017 we Virtually tested with different fluid mediums. Our first cylinder simulation test failed because we did not understand Pascal as a Function of Time.

In early 2018  looked to hybrid magnetic and combustion forces in one cylinder, to variably insert a space occupying rod, during an expansion stroke, thinking that 

the utilized magnetic source of energy, shall recover by increasing the cylinder internal pressure, and by minimizing the cylinder displacement volume. 

 The arrangement design and method, was based on absorbing the initial combustion shock, using a supporting spring, that will store the combustion energy and release it later on during an expansion stroke, along with added magnetic force. The system Volume was not closed to obtain the result of an applied Pascal Law, and results failed, showing a Work Graph that is lower than that of a comparable Conventional System, and that is in agreement with our professor conclusion, however we realized by combustion forces in opposite directions, where the resulting Graph was similar to that associated with the spring design, and where Pascal does not apply unless we count the combined surfaces, and distance of travel to both pistons.

 A week later, we decided to remove the spring and have the Insertion Rod becomes a Second Floating Piston, taking its motion power from the combustion forces, with surfaces shaped that, it can allow the Floating Piston to accelerate along with the first crankshaft piston, in the same initial direction, but also to change its direction later on during an expansion stroke, due to variable surface interfacing the combustion pressure, as in our video presentation . The results became victorious when the Floating Piston succeeded in taking its complete kinetic power design and method, to initially suction fluid, and then to perform a compression stroke, not only without deducting any kinetic power from the crankshaft piston, as the only output surface in a Pascal, but with adding an unprecedented performance enhancement to the crankshaft piston work, due to competing with the combustion fluid for space, where the calculated combustion mass acting on the crankshaft piston, have a space void added, that we called the negative mass, responsible for adding a second acceleration vector of the crankshaft motion,  and with that, declaring the birth of the Relative-Motion Mechanics of Pascal as a Function of Time, and the existence of the Negative Mass Rule, where to comply with Newton's principles, we had to conclude that a net force, in a Relative-Motion field, subjects an object, a crank-shaft piston in this case, to the acceleration of the second power, as a Function of Time.  

As a result, and with more Virtual Testing we learned how to increase the cylinder internal pressure, in a process we now call an “Acceleration of Potential Energy”, and how to increase the kinetic energy output of a first crankshaft piston, beyond thermal assessments, and that was how we learned the new introduced Physics, and how the term Pascal as a Function of Time formed.   

Later on we started testing on Turbo Charge arrangements, where most compression energy input was recovered as additional combustion forces, opening a complete new chapter, to the business of Pressure Accumulation Mechanics.  

Another argument was: 

• "it is important not to confuse energy with power; when energy becomes a function of time it becomes power. "  

And we argued that this is simply  wrong, and a better statement is: 

• when Energy becomes Time-dependent, then it becomes Power. 

Sometimes, even with advanced scholars, it pays off to go back to the basics, as we find that some engineers, tend to mix the concepts of Energy as Time-dependent, where it is relevant to physical distance, with Energy as a Function of Time, which is relevant to an equation of the second power, of a "virtual-distance". ( Virtual physical-Distance is a new terms defined and introduced through the argument of our literature of motion as a Function of Time).

- So when energy is time dependent? or time-independent? 

case 1:

Moving a 1 kg object to a 1-meter of linear physical distance is time-independent (of course, in a closed system), meaning same energy is needed every time, regardless of speed or time, And

case 2: 

doubling the distance would require double the time, when similar force, at similar conditions as in case 1 is used; energy difference between the two cases is time dependent, where (Time  is a Function of position)  and the problem in using  the term "Function of Time" in this case, is that it is being applied to a situation where energy is preserved. while according to Hamilton, when energy is a function of time, then energy conservation does not stand and LaGrange equations do not apply, including Lorentz transformations, which is the engine of relativity as a function of position. On the other hand, Hamilton equations like Jacobi introduced the time variable as a function of position, this why Hamilton equations can only handle energy as time dependent and not as a function of time. Special relativity, introduced the (t') variable, to deal with the dilemma of energy conservation, supposedly in an open system, but we know mathematically that a variable can be dealt with by elimination, and as a result the (t') again locks the special relativity behind the limits of energy as a function of position, and Space-Time out of any possible function of time.. 

case 3: 

if we had to move 1 Kg to a physical distance of 1-meter, like in case 1, but under different path conditions, and a different field, found that double the energy is needed, then the issue becomes, solving  D'Alembert displacement distance, ( or displacement) as a function of time, rather than correcting such displacement to the actual physical distance, as practiced in Special and General Relativity.

Unfortunately, we find physics textbooks, in Classical mechanics as well as in Special and General relativity, when analyzing The Function of Time, or calculating positions as a function of time, always the next step while advancing in math conclusions, from one equation to the next, is  building coordinates of position for time prime or time as independent variable, unaware that they are changing the subject from position as a Function of Time, as in case 3, to Time as a Function of position, as in case 2. Quantum Mechanics however, accomplished great steps ahead due to not falling for the sins of closed systems.

If cases 1 and 3 were Pascal cylinders, then energy input and output would differ and Pascal law as a function of position would not stand , and the energy difference can not be thermally estimated. 

For that reason, we are introducing Pascal law as a function of time in our Relative-Motion cylinder, and for this reason we decided to disclose this very simple physics, where the main challenge is that, even though D' Alembert introduced the concept few centuries ago, we still do not see it in classical mechanics, simply because the Relative-Motion cylinder was not invented yet.

In our Relative-Motion cylinder, energy output as a function of time, was greater than its comparable value in a conventional cylinder, and the difference can be mathematically calculated by adding the potential of a negative combustion mass (space void) created by our secondary floating piston, Where work energy gained ( -W= -F * D) where (-F) means force applied without need to be exerted by combustion fluid, that was supposed to be filling in the space of the floating piston.

Our favorite argument, was in the Colorado  APS, physics conference, on April 13th,2019. And the quote was:

• we know that Pascal results can not allow output differences that is more than the assessed friction values, which is, let us suggest 5%, How is it possible for anyone to suggest a performance enhancement on a cylinder, that is 100% or more?  is there an over-unity statement ?.

In response, we need to mention that a combustion cylinder, does not use a Simple- Pascal law as in other hydraulic cylinders, but an integrated calculations that make work energy equations fit in with approximation, and all we need then is to describe both kinds of combustion and hydraulic cylinders, being a Pascal as a function of position. 

Breaking the 5% limits, was initially done when engineers discovered the direct injection method, which exceeded 35-50% performance enhancements. 

Physicists so far, attributing the difference to better burning, has failed to calculate the magnitude of possible enhancement, and failed to realize the function of time role in the direct injection method, which we are taking to a next level.

 Our argument drops any over-unity statement, based on our new physics of " time as a form of energy".  

A  physicist fellow asked, how space-time and Relativity as a Function-Of-Time may relate or compare?

The main difference we claim with Relativity as a function of time is the " Virtual physical-distance" measured by second, where motion is conducted in an open system of a field; while Space Time, works with physical and relative distances, measured by meter, which limits space time boundaries to the  function of position, However that is not the only difference, because even within the limits of the function of position, basic science rules need a revisit.

 
Before we engage in this we need to understand what we are really dealling with, based on seeing how the main-street physics, look like. If we have to visit any physics conference, we expect that many presentations will be talking about universe-expansion, or rather a cold-universe-expansion, based on a hundred years old proposal made by Special-Relativity to drop the ( coordinate origin) being non-compatible with observation differences made by observers positioned far-away from each other.

 A first issue we need to agree to if we needed to speak science is that "an acceptable result in science must be independent of observer's readings or perceptions".

A second issue we can address in these physics conferences, is by dividing the solar system speed around the milky way by 3.14, to calculate and adjust for the 73 km/sec red shift universe expansion claim. And that is the only thing needed to dispute universe expansion caused by the faulty proposal of dropping the coordinate origin.

Our Relative-Motion argument claims:

• Newtonian-Galilean relativity attributed the non-conservation in a mechanical motion, to the function of time, where the mathematical coordinate shape of motion is a curved line parabola.
• Special Relativity adopted the Reimann mathematical coordinates, to manage Relative distances, possibly expecting that it might serve the Function of Time. In other words, curving the coordinates was thought be a method to overcome coordinate difficulties associated with the Function of Time, including the non-conservation issue. ( we need not find difficulty reminding that a curved graph when motion is a function of time, results from the relevant equation, and not from the observer perceptions adopted in Special Relativity) 
• Special Relativity in the example of extending two poles to the sky of Newyork, considered that the distance between two points A and B in space, at the tips of the poles, must be equivalent to a distance between A and B on a rigid body, at the bottom of the poles. This equivalency, simply distances Special-Relativity from speaking of any mechanical motion as a function of time, because the shortest distance between two points in space, is a curve line, while the shortest distance between two points on a rigid body is a straight line. This is not about right or wrong but about explaining what the function of time means.
• To better compare functions mathematically we can take another example,. When Special-Relativity suggested that we will see a rock we drop from a train, to be seen moving in a straight line, we actually making a mathematical mistake of the high school  level. 
• This trend of curving coordinate lines based on observer position was further extended into string theories, however  all that is still short of finding an energy conservation method of an open system, other than the artistic or non-scientific claims of a cold      expansion of our universe. The issue we see in this trend is that it could make a fundamental violation of mathematics, where any given statement or equation shall not express a different function on each side, meaning we cannot have the first part of an equation, starting to serve the function of time and then conclude results as a function of position, as we can see some physicists do in Space-Time arguments, despite the clear advise of Hamilton to avoid that. 
• Both Classical mecanics and  Special Relativity treat Time as a dimension, meaning they are both saying we are dealing with motion only as a function of position.
• The famous equation, E=MC^2 is not relevant to the mathematical square of acceleration in the equation of "position as a function of time", and the tool of the "time prime"  concept, added to the Gallilean coordinates to correct for positions, shall not be mathematically confused with the Time-Lapse of work or acceleration.
• General Relativity treats the universe as a big balloon-like universe, with un-changed amount of energy available, and that is a problematic proposal simply because almost every motion in space is a curved motion supported by acceleration that needs a source of energy to maintain it, also  like the dark ages, the big bang universe has a center. Our Relativity as a Function of Time treats universe as infinite rather than big, and with that it is obvious that universe shall not have a center, also we introduced Time as a source of growing energy, and with that, we think of universe to exist even before matter was created.
• Big Bang suggests a non-orderly creation of universe and we have many reasons to examine an orderly creation of universe.
• Most classical mechanics theorists as well as General Relativity suggest that what we see of the universe is the past, and we have many reasons to examine images we see of universe as images of the present rather than of the past.
• Closed systems physics as well as General Relativity apply mathematics of inertial frame of reference to the open universe, by treating universe as a vacuum. Our "Relativity as a Function of Time" suggests that vacuum does not exist, in presence of Gravity or Time.
• In a universe where everything is rotating and revolving, and where lights we see follow the basic rules of wave merging, main street phycisists want to convince us that lights originated by stars, billions of years ago, reached to us in a slightly curved straight path and we can still refer to these stars in the same backward direction. 

 We arrive here at the target question to engage energy equations in our motion systems, including the E=MC2  and  E=1/2 M*V2, being both dealing with the function of position, under the rules of potential and kinetic equivalancies, 

(to better understand what the function means, we can see how for example E=MC2 can be correct as a function of position and incorrect as a function of time. )

Have the E=MC2 intended to serve motion as a function of position, then it can be dervived like this:

Potential Energy = 2 (kinetic) = MV2 or Gama variable* MC2  (correct under the kinetic energy rules as a function of position)

Have the E=MC2 intended to serve the function of time, then it would violate the function, like saying:

Squeezing 100 oranges equals 10 liters of juice, where the count of oranges can serve calculating volume in a special case.

- A first part of an equation before the equal sign must serve the same function of a second part.  we cannot say squeezing 100 oranges equals 10 liters of juice, because the function of counting is different from the function of volume.

What if we say squeezing 100 oranges equals gamma variable * 10 liters, where gamma represent a change in size, that is still wrong, because the size variable cannot be the same for all the count.

Similarly E=Y* MC2 can serve the function of position where the momentum is changing, but that will not cover the changes in direction, and for that we shall not use it to serve the function of time..
Now we understand the function, 

Our Relativity as a Function of Time, based on an Observer independent energy equation, introduces the equality of energy and Time, which is in complete agreement with Newtonian laws and with classical mechanics, as long as the rule of the function is not violated , and that can be done by replacing distance measures using the meter, by a virtual physical distance and ( time lapse of acceleration ).

Finally when we arrive at a situation where we need to claim a new mathematical system theory, we usually apply the math to nature as an audit.

Our equation, { E =1/2 *Mf *g^2 *t } where t is time of acceleration, finds energy potential to be proportionate with time cube,

E=1/2 MF* g2* t can be constructed on a cartesian volume like this:

-MF = mass force of the subject of motion

-g1= acceleration of the net force on Y

-g2=acceleration of the field on Z

-t = Time of acceleration on X

And potential energy of motion not only represent a cartesian volume rather than a scaler, but calculates the energy used and created by nature every second, from the source of Time, to sustain accelerations of curved motions like the rotation of a planet around its sun.

The time cube governance is in approval with Kepler's calculations, when he pointed to the time cube governance, and that is what allows our "Relativity as a Function of Time", to solve that energy preservation is a part of energy acceleration and creation from the sustainable source of Time in the process of growing our universe, while all other relativity theories, were locked behind the bars of a "cold expansion" statements of universe, and where the total available universe energy is fixed and is created at what they observe as "a big bang". 

The very first question one faces upon working with patenting and prototyping is, do you really believe that you can have anything new and novel, in today's high tech, multi-billion-dollar investment per project?   The truth is, if we can find that a physics argument is broken somehow, somewhere, then neither high tech nor the multi-billion-dollar projects can have a chance, whenever a competing novel idea is identified and persuaded; and if anyone is in doubt, we recommend blending in a conference among engineers, and ask:   

• When a motion is a function of time? and count how many fellows answer, when motion is a function of speed.

It does not mean, that they are not good at what they do, but it simply means, there is an opportunity, or some opportunity is waiting ahead for you, given you are willing to think deeper.

We understand, the project is still at a stage of an infant steps toward realizing a new sustainable source of energy that, in the end can only be the fruit of a combined thinking and researching system made by those willing to do what it takes, for a better human future. Negative arguments at this stage can be more fruitful than positive ones.