Does this break any of Newton's laws ?

[eccentrically1]

Tarsier79 "....geometry hasnt given us a solution yet. A weight has to travel the same vertical distance down as it does up to get to the same position. As far I can tell, horizontal displacement doesnt effect the amount of energy you gain over a drop, nor the amount of energy require to raise that weight."

I'm staring at a mechanism that would seem to contradict that assertion....

Hey Aemilius,
I see a similarity between your mechanism and triplock's zero length spring balanced mechanism (from The Missing Word is Balance thread).
He finally agreed the idea didn't work. Do you see the problem?

[Aemilius]

Hi eccentrically1.... give me a link to that thread will you? Thanks!

Never mind.... I found it.

[ruggerodk]

You must transfer the motion of the wheel into the dropped mass, you can call it a flip or a throw but the small mass must be disconnected from the wheel when the wheel stops rotating.

Maybe turn the whole thing inside-out.
Let the motion of the wheel keep the small mass 'fixed' in its position in space...which again makes the wheel rotate.

Just a thought.

ruggero ;-)

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

Trevor, geometry hasnt given us a solution yet. A weight has to travel the same vertical distance down as it does up to get to the same position. As far I can tell, horizontal displacement doesnt effect the amount of energy you gain over a drop, nor the amount of energy require to raise that weight. It might pay to understand those laws correctly if you are to argue against them.

Hi Kaine,
I do understand these laws that’s why I believe it is possible to over come them without breaking them, with the exception of gravity being a conservative force, and I would also add that I do not believe that it takes the same energy to lift a weight back to the height that it fell from, no matter which path it takes, for me to believe that I need to see all the experiments on every path possible, I know they have not explored every path so it must be a half baked theory, it is a assumption based on what experiments have been done, only they do not include some of my experiments I have done and are doing.
I hope to finish two experiments this week that will change your mind!
Regards Trevor

[Aemilius]

eccentrically1 "I see a similarity between your mechanism and triplock's zero length spring balanced mechanism (from The Missing Word is Balance thread)."

I've read the entire thread (The Missing Word is Balance) and the only similarity I see is a vague one consisting of nothing more than a shared focus on the nature of balance in general.

eccentrically1 "He finally agreed the idea didn't work."

Well that's precisely what one would expect isn't it? Extensive ongoing theoretical speculation that isn't followed through with by empirical experimental investigative confirmation cannot produce any conclusive data leading to what could be considered complete understanding.... you must build it.

eccentrically1 "Do you see the problem?"

See the problem? Oh yes, I see the problem, I've been working "the problem" for almost twenty years.... now see the solution, I've posted it in the thread you mentioned (The Missing Word is Balance).

I'm not presenting this as "The Answer" to the riddle of achieving self rotation of a balanced mechanism.... I do think it's an important piece of the puzzle though.

[eccentrically1]

How is it a piece of the puzzle?

[preoccupied]

You must transfer the motion of the wheel into the dropped mass, you can call it a flip or a throw but the small mass must be disconnected from the wheel when the wheel stops rotating.

Maybe turn the whole thing inside-out.
Let the motion of the wheel keep the small mass 'fixed' in its position in space...which again makes the wheel rotate.

Just a thought.

ruggero ;-)

I have no idea what you are referring to.

Would you elaborate, please?

[Aemilius]

eccentrically1 "How is it a piece of the puzzle?"

Well, in a nut shell, the real puzzle (as I see it anyway) in this academically frowned on area of investigation has always been how to achieve mechanical self rotation.... using the law.

Rather than continue trying to develop an overbalanced or lopsided mechanical arrangement that rotates as a result of its lopsidedness, which hasn't worked despite several centuries now of exhaustive analysis and empirical investigation, I chose instead to try to develop a mechanical arrangement that actually remained balanced no matter how lopsided it was that could be easily imbalanced by the introduction of a very slight change in its condition, a "trigger force" that would liberate a considerably larger force from the mechanism (by means of gravitational influence) than the trigger force itself.

I believed that if I could manage to devise such an arrangement it might then be possible to divert a percentage of that larger force (or even all of it if necessary) back to the point where the trigger force was being applied manually thereby "closing the loop", removing myself from the "equation" and realizing the objective. I've been working toward that end (on and off) for many years as a hobby, no illusions of grandeur.... this mechanism, built and rebuilt around twenty times now over that time is the result of my investigation/hobby to date.

The reason I consider it an important piece of the puzzle is because it seems, so far anyway, to exhibit many of the qualities I originally set out to create....

....It balances out at all points around 360 degrees regardless of mass distribution.

....It remains in relative equilibrium as a whole even as it's being periodically imbalanced during rotation.

....The magnitude of the very slight imbalancing force delivered to the system by means of the control lever is sensibly comparable in every way to standing a pencil on end, holding it at the top and moving it back and forth an inch or so.... if you were to do that you'd be feeling exactly what I feel during testing, almost nothing.

....After just five or six well timed repetitions moving the control lever back and forth approximately 5 to 7 degrees (2.5 to 3.5 degrees each way from the vertical) the mechanism will be found rotating at over 100 rotations per minute.... and it can go faster.

Those are some of the reasons I think it's an important piece of the puzzle. A more in depth explanation and description is here....

http://thecolemechanism.blogspot.com/

....if you're interested.

Emile

[ruggerodk]

Hi Emile,
It's an extremely nice build...and an genious idea.

Have you tried to use a pendulum instead of your finger?

It some way it resembles the two pendulums in Besslers drawings....(?)

ruggero ;-)

[eccentrically1]

eccentrically1 "How is it a piece of the puzzle?"

Well, in a nut shell, the real puzzle (as I see it anyway) in this academically frowned on area of investigation has always been how to achieve mechanical self rotation.... using the law.

Rather than continue trying to develop an overbalanced or lopsided mechanical arrangement that rotates as a result of its lopsidedness, which hasn't worked despite several centuries now of exhaustive analysis and empirical investigation, I chose instead to try to develop a mechanical arrangement that actually remained balanced no matter how lopsided it was that could be easily imbalanced by the introduction of a very slight change in its condition, a "trigger force" that would liberate a considerably larger force from the mechanism (by means of gravitational influence) than the trigger force itself.

I believed that if I could manage to devise such an arrangement it might then be possible to divert a percentage of that larger force (or even all of it if necessary) back to the point where the trigger force was being applied manually thereby "closing the loop", removing myself from the "equation" and realizing the objective. I've been working toward that end (on and off) for many years as a hobby, no illusions of grandeur.... this mechanism, built and rebuilt around twenty times now over that time is the result of my investigation/hobby to date.

The reason I consider it an important piece of the puzzle is because it seems, so far anyway, to exhibit many of the qualities I originally set out to create....

....It balances out at all points around 360 degrees regardless of mass distribution.

....It remains in relative equilibrium as a whole even as it's being periodically imbalanced during rotation.

....The magnitude of the very slight imbalancing force delivered to the system by means of the control lever is sensibly comparable in every way to standing a pencil on end, holding it at the top and moving it back and forth an inch or so.... if you were to do that you'd be feeling exactly what I feel during testing, almost nothing.

....After just five or six well timed repetitions moving the control lever back and forth approximately 5 to 7 degrees (2.5 to 3.5 degrees each way from the vertical) the mechanism will be found rotating at over 100 rotations per minute.... and it can go faster.

Those are some of the reasons I think it's an important piece of the puzzle. A more in depth explanation and description is here....

http://thecolemechanism.blogspot.com/

....if you're interested.

Emile

Hi aemilius
The concept is the same; start with a balanced mass and expect different results that an initially unbalanced mass would give.
You've actually built something so kudos to you.

I'm not sure if the force analysis you've done is complete. Do you think the chain between the sprockets might have some influence on the stability throughout the cycle?
And when you turn it with your finger, the forces don't cancel anymore as when it is in a static position, obviously.
I can appreciate the feeling that you get from the leverage.
It reminds me of a ride at the fair that develops force in a similar fashion.

[Aemilius]

Have you looked at the blog eccentrically1?

[eccentrically1]

Yes, do you think I missed something?

[Aemilius]

eccentrically1 "....do you think I missed something?"

Possibly....

eccentrically1 "The concept is the same; start with a balanced mass and expect different results that an initially unbalanced mass would give."

I'm afraid I don't see the similarity, aside maybe from a shared focus on the nature of balance. I think your observation may be based on a misconception.... can you perhaps illustrate your observation about the concepts being the same with some kind of schematic comparison?

eccentrically1 "You've actually built something so kudos to you."

Thanks!

eccentrically1 "I'm not sure if the force analysis you've done is complete."

You say you've looked at the blog.... http://thecolemechanism.blogspot.com/.... if you have then you already know to what extent the planned analysis has been carried out and that it's not complete.

eccentrically1 "Do you think the chain between the sprockets might have some influence on the stability throughout the cycle?"

With reference to the diagram (below) taken from "Stage One - Balance" of the ongoing analysis on the blog, the Planetary Sprocket with the Pendulum that's fixed to it, the Chain and half the weight of the Chassis make up the force D shown in the diagram.... it's influence on the mechanism as a whole is clearly described at all points around 360 degrees....



eccentrically1 "And when you turn it with your finger, the forces don't cancel anymore as when it is in a static position, obviously."

"Stage Three - Equilibrium" of the ongoing analysis on the blog shows how and why the Mechanism will begin to rotate in response to a slight imbalancing force applied when the Mechanisim is in either of the two possible positions of un-stable equilibrium as shown....

This diagram (below) shows the Mechanism in the first possible position of un-stable equilibrium. The Pendulum is inverted, the Planet Sprocket below.... degree of tilt P is zero degrees.



If the Sun Sprocket is rotated N degrees from P the Mechanism's parts will seek to move in the directions indicated by M (degree of tilt required is exagerated) as shown....

Tilt to the left....



....and the Mechanism will seek the first possible position of stable equilibrium F.



Tilt to the right....



....and the Mechanism will seek the second possible position of stable equilibrium F.



This diagram (below) shows the Mechanism in the second possible position of un-stable equilibrium. The Pendulum is hanging normally, the Planet Sprocket above.... degree of tilt P is zero degrees.



If the Sun Sprocket is rotated N degrees from P the Mechanism's parts will seek to move in the directions indicated by M (degree of tilt required is exagerated) as shown....

Tilt to the left....



....and the Mechanism will seek the first possible position of stable equilibrium F.



Tilt to the right....



....and the Mechanism will seek the second possible position of stable equilibrium F.



"Stage Two - Compensation" of the ongoing analysis on the blog shows how the Calibrated Spring acts to keep the Mechanism as a whole in relative equilibrium even as it's being periodically imbalanced during rotation.... in other words the Calibrated Spring acts continuously to compensate for the ever changing mass distribution such that the sum of all forces coming to bear on the Control Lever at any point in the course of one complete cycle is zero as shown....

This diagram (below) shows the downward force D on the Planet Sprocket. The force H on the Sun Sprocket is the result of the force D, and the force I on the Control Lever is the result of the force H. The Mechanism is not balanced or in equilibrium in this diagram because there is no equal and opposite force to counter the force I.



The Calibrated Spring is mounted on the back of the Mechanism (depicted to the right in the diagram below). The lower end X is fixed to the stand the mechanism is mounted on. The upper end Y is connected to the Control Lever. The diagram shows how the equal and opposite forces I and J effectively cancel each other out and equilibrious balance Q is the result, or.... I minus J equals Q. The Mechanism is in equilibrium, the sum of all forces acting on it is zero.



The following series of schematic diagrams show how the Mechanism remains in equilibrium regardless of position through one complete cycle, and how the Calibrated Spring provides the varying equal and opposite force J needed to match the varying force I that the Mechanism's changing mass/weight distribution exerts on the Control Lever at various points around 360 degrees, keeping the Mechanism balanced, maintaining equilibrium.



















eccentrically1 "I can appreciate the feeling that you get from the leverage. It reminds me of a ride at the fair that develops force in a similar fashion."

Really? I've never seen or heard of any mechanism that will be found rotating at over 100 rotations per minute after just 5 or 6 well timed repetitions consisting of moving a control lever back and forth approximately 5 to 7 degrees (2.5 to 3.5 degrees each way from the vertical) where the sum of all the forces acting on the lever is zero.... Can you post a picture of the ride at the fair you're refering to (or any mechanism for that matter) that develops this kind of force in a similar fashion? I'd be very curious to see it!

Emile

[preoccupied]

.......... to, a ride (or any mechanism for that matter) that develops this kind of force in a similar fashion? I'd be very curious to see it!

Emile

This guy thinks his fly wheel he produces using a centripetal force can generate massive energy.
Centrifugal and Centripetal forces
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UBOYVTSXPZA

The rotation amount you state for your device is similar, but his is spinning faster and rotating well timed repetitions using degrees more than yours. His centripetal fly wheel also has to be timed correctly. You might agree that centripetal force is the category of inertia your mechanism specifically falls into.

[eccentrically1]

can you perhaps illustrate your observation about the concepts being the same with some kind of schematic comparison?

The comparison of the concept is illustrated by the words; your gizmo proposes to maintain equilibrium through a cycle. So did triplock's. The only difference in your gizmo is instead of using springs to balance the gizmo, you are using counterweights.

It's a seductive idea, but it boils down to leverage in both cases, and your gizmo has impressive leverage in a small space. Leverage is great, but it won't turn a wheel. Even if you divert some or all of the leverage back to the trigger force, and remove yourself from the equation.

By the way, it isn't necessary to post all of those pictures. It makes it difficult to reply when a post is that long. If I didn't reply to something you've said, that's why, sorry about that.