Another claim to a working device...

[honza]

Grimmer wrote:

LOL. It's all to do with the conservation of energy. 

Each energy derivative is conserved. The two familiar ones are of course the first and second derivatives, Momentum and Force x distance. We can think off these as velocity "energy" and acceleration energy. We could add conservation of heat within an insulated space as a third familiar conservation. 

But all derivatives must be conserved since we are talking in all cases of more and more complicated examples of the basic conservation, the conservation of momentum

Grimmer later wrote:

"But all derivatives must be conserved since we are talking in all cases of more and more complicated examples of the basic conservation, the conservation of momentum." 

It's almost Freudian how the word "momentum" is used in the description of the third derivative energy conservation, i.e. the conservation of angular momentum. Presumably an alternative way of describing the second derivative would be as the conservation of circular momentum.

Please beware !
grouping the “conservation of angular momentum� together with “conservation of linear momentum� is very confusing as these have nothing in common.

The “conservation of linear momentum� conserves energy - so it is appropriately chosen term.

The “conservation of angular momentum� does not conserve energy. Is inappropriately chosen term which really describes only a phenomenon of the AM remaining unchanged when work / energy (Joules) is added to the system or removed from it in a different way than by direct torque.

Conservation of angular momentum has nothing to do with conservation of energy !!!!

[Grimer]

You have completely failed to understand my argument - which is hardly surprising since you can't even spell my name correctly.

[zoelra]

Ok it's a slow day at the salt mines ... what can I say.


Ribeiro Brothers (RAR Energia Site)
www.rarenergia.com.br

Can we gauge their future progress and success by the number picture posts they have made? Below are the number of posts made each month since they began building/posting.

March - 7
April - 6
May - 5
June - 2

You can see the frequency has dropped off significantly. Revisions to their design began to appear after their last post in May (5/24). It has been 35 days since then, and in that time there were only 2 posts, with no posts in the last 14 days. Lets hope some new pictures of progress are posted soon.

[Grimer]

It works.

Basically there is a different gravitational torque between the outboard and inboard paths of the weight. This results in a couple which gives an incremental turn of the crankshaft for each mechanism in turn.

I'm drawing up a cycle to show the horizontal adiabatic legs (2nd and 3rd derv exchanges) and vertical iso-derv legs.

These are of course analogues of the Carnot adiabatic and isothermal legs.

[zoelra]

Sadly it has now been 21 days since the last post on www.rarenergia.com.br .

The previous longest spread of days without posting was 12 days (the period between 5/24 - 6/5). The 5/24 post was the post that included the first revisions to the design.

[Tarsier79]

Basically there is a different gravitational torque between the outboard and inboard paths of the weight

Frank. It doesn't work because there is no difference in gravitational torque between the two paths. They have shown nothing special about this build in any of the photos. Your above statement insults the intelligence of anyone who has studied OB designs.

[zoelra]

We’re only a few days away from a month with no posts from www.rarenergia.com.br .

While we wait, there’s another modification they made that I’ve wanted to mention but didn’t have the time. I placed image32a inside image37a so you can see the difference. It looks like the hanging arm in 32a has been lengthened by a few feet to that shown in 37a. In the final two images you can see plates that appear to be welded to the main arm, probably at the splice locations. There is also some wet or glossy paint along the arms in those areas.

[Grimer]

Basically there is a different gravitational torque between the outboard and inboard paths of the weight

Frank. It doesn't work because there is no difference in gravitational torque between the two paths. They have shown nothing special about this build in any of the photos. Your above statement insults the intelligence of anyone who has studied OB designs.

It's not a question of OB (out of balance). Gravity is providing a couple, not a net downward force but a twist. Look up couple in wiki and try to understand.

There is no net down force, no overbalance. The total down force resulting from the action of gravity is equal to the total up force but the forces do not act at the same point. One acts at the outboard path of the weight and the other acts at the inboard path giving additional twist to the system as a whole.

I appreciate this isn't easy to understand. I wouldn't have seen it myself if I hadn't had to study moment distribution in the fifties.

Funnily enough my first job was with a structural engineer called Galbraith. I was a bit appalled to find that he didn't understand moment distribution design and made all his structures pin jointed so that he could analyse them. I was even more appalled when three months after I started working for him he was elected President of the Institution of Structural Engineers. If you can find his presidential address you will see that it included some of my UCL design work, viz. a photoelastic study of an indeterminate reinforced concrete bridge arch. My lecturer, Wilkins, was very annoyed that he hadn't been credited since it was his course project that we were set.

After a particular egregious cantilever design of Galbraith's involving steelwork for a school I decided I wouldn't sleep at night if I continued to work for him. Fortunately, a vacancy came up for a Scientific Officer in the Road Research Laboratory, six months after graduation. Since I'd won the Houndsfield Prize in Traffic Engineering I had no problem in being accepted.

[Grimer]

It's an offset gyro situation.

In effect you have two angular conservations of angular momentum going on. One in the vertical plane and one in the horizontal plane. Gravity is acting on the one in the vertical plane just as it does with the offset gyro.

This means that the energy being generated is one derivative higher than Jerk, i.e. Snap. No wonder nobody's found it till now.

To get a feeling of what's going on imagine an offset gyro which is happily precessing around its tower. Now stop its precession. What happens? The gyro whips up doesn't it. Now supposing that whip up is prevented by a crank on a shaft. then the gyro will apply a force to that crank which will turn that crank-shaft an increment. That's RAR.

[Reticon]

Grimer, what will it mean about your observations if this thing turns out to be just another goose chase? Will you then do it correctly?

[Grimer]

It won't. Why? Because I now understand what the device is trying to do and how the offset gyro can do it.

Basically one has to turn the gravitational wind though 180°. One has to build the analogy of the VentoMobil which can sail directly into the wind.

And before some moron says that gravity isn't a vertical wind, it's a "suck" or something equally stupid, gravity is equivalent to a wind.

A ten pound note doesn't look the least bit like ten one pound coins but is equivalent to ten one pound coins.

[path_finder]

Is this multi-section building based on the following concept?
http://img237.imageshack.us/img237/9655 ... onsxe1.jpg
http://img66.imageshack.us/img66/5947/gravitomotru0.gif

[rlortie]

Path_finder,

My compliments on the eye-catching links you posted above.

I fear that if the design in question is base on a facsimile, they are in deep trouble.

If the trade-off of leverage were indeed possible, you would find me strapping bricks to bicycle peddles and enjoying a PM powered self-motivating ride.

Ralph

[Tarsier79]

I think they are expecting it to PF, but altering its path from circular. You can see clearly from the animation in your second link why it won't work.

[Reticon]

Ralph - so often the voice of reason!