Hiawatha hurbles...
Score, gents. The laws of physics are my bitch!
Schnellwagen at the ready:
A force which varies for free is a free energy gradient.
A weight placed upon a vertically-spinning wheel is subject to both centrifugal force and gravity. However their net sum undulates - it's sinusoidal because gravity adds to CF through the lower 180° arc, but subtracts from it through the upper, overhead portion of the cycle - ie. from the weight's perspective, the radial and gravitational vectors align additively and destructively each in turn, once per cycle.
This is a free energy gradient.
We can 'drop' a weight when it's heavier, and 'lift' it when it's lighter.
Additionally, conservation of angular momentum governs angular speed as a function of radius (the 'ice-skater effect'), so 'dropping' the weight out towards the rim should decelerate it. However it can alternatively cause an acceleration, by converting CF to torque (by whatever preferred transmission mechanism). Hence dropping it when it's heavier (CF and G aligned) can add more rotational kinetic energy (RKE) to the system than needs to be subtracted from it to retract the weight back towards the axle in the upper half of the cycle (when CF and G vectors are opposing each other); the outbound excursion causes acceleration, and so does the retraction (again, due to conservation of AM)!
Both extension and retraction are gravity-assisted, and both cause acceleration. Angular acceleration causes CF, CF is converted to torque, which is converted into CF, which is converted into torque.
For any given config, peak efficiency arises when CF = 1G; hence, the output force is 2G, and the input force is zero.
Ergo Bessler's mechanism used this free variation in net force as an energy source, and a positive-feedback loop to rinse it proper, like. The per-cycle gain is equal to the mass times excursion distance of the radially-displaced weight, times the integral of the equalised CF and G forces.
There's little else worth saying for now, save that gravity is for cissies; real men play with magnets. Stonking great N42 NdFeB's. Kilowatt solenoids. That's some proper force right there. The optimum config is a large radius for high radial force and excursion distance at minimum speed, and EM for the linear vector (it's x10^39 > G after all).
Force is force. If Orffyreus could've used decent magnets, he would've.
One, final note on the transmission: it's direct-drive, or OB; each has their own pros and cons. In the former case though, the requirement that "everything must go around together" is a particular limiting factor - however it's do-able (such as via a slightly-modified scissorjack mechanism). OB seems equally viable.. it's swings and roundabouts, i think..
I've only sussed all this in the last 24hrs so i'll update as i make any progress... need a wm2d sesh..
Skoodles skiboobles,
V
Toad Elevating Moment
Moderator: scott
-
MrVibrating
- Addict
- Posts: 2879
- Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2010 12:19 am
- Location: W3
re: Toad Elevating Moment
Looking forward to the wm2d results & your findings vibrator.
Profound thoughts often don't survive the melt of the suns rays & make it to 24 hours in my house - wishing you better luck.
Profound thoughts often don't survive the melt of the suns rays & make it to 24 hours in my house - wishing you better luck.
-
MrVibrating
- Addict
- Posts: 2879
- Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2010 12:19 am
- Location: W3
Oh don't worry, my delusions can last days! I was full of doubts after posting this, but this evening i made some progress in finding that the optimum number of scissorjacks for converting radial work to RKE (as mentioned above) is 5; because the 'jack beams go from near-horizontal when fully retracted to near-vertical at full extension - but only 'near' - ie. less than 90° for each mechanism - you'd need five of 'em.
Six would be too many (in a single-plane sequence) because you wouldn't be converting the jacks' full travel to torque.
Hence five is the optimum number of direct-drive lever-mechanisms.
Who'd've thunk that?
I call it "the MrVibrating principle" lol. Five. Why didn't anyone else notice that? Go figure. (only kidding JC ;P)
Also came up with a clutched-flywheel mechanism that does the same job... I'll start simming over the w/e....
Six would be too many (in a single-plane sequence) because you wouldn't be converting the jacks' full travel to torque.
Hence five is the optimum number of direct-drive lever-mechanisms.
Who'd've thunk that?
I call it "the MrVibrating principle" lol. Five. Why didn't anyone else notice that? Go figure. (only kidding JC ;P)
Also came up with a clutched-flywheel mechanism that does the same job... I'll start simming over the w/e....
-
MrVibrating
- Addict
- Posts: 2879
- Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2010 12:19 am
- Location: W3
re: Toad Elevating Moment
Also, i've just seen some reminiscence between this concept and MT41:
- the jacks extend for one half of the cycle (between 3 and 9 o'clock) and retract during the other (between 9 and 3) - that is, they're deployed as they reach the horizontal
- their action directly drives the wheel
- it's a hieroglyph, obvioushly, but nonetheless illustrates that the system depicted is loaded with energy; the weights are out by the rim when their corresponding jacks are extended; hence they must extend from the axle outwards. Similarly, they're retracted when the lower weights are close to the axle, confirming this implicit instruction.
I think MT41 is restating that OB as a prime-mover is a mug's game... and it's alluding to an alternative dynamic; OB may be used, but only as a means to do something with energy gained elsewhere - ie. for torque. But it cannot of itself be a cause of gain in energy - OB is only useful as an actuator, not as a prime-mover or energy source.. The axle drives the jacks in the upper half cycle, and the jacks drive the axle in the lower half.
That's what MT41 seems to be saying to me, in light of my latest findings...
- the jacks extend for one half of the cycle (between 3 and 9 o'clock) and retract during the other (between 9 and 3) - that is, they're deployed as they reach the horizontal
- their action directly drives the wheel
- it's a hieroglyph, obvioushly, but nonetheless illustrates that the system depicted is loaded with energy; the weights are out by the rim when their corresponding jacks are extended; hence they must extend from the axle outwards. Similarly, they're retracted when the lower weights are close to the axle, confirming this implicit instruction.
I think MT41 is restating that OB as a prime-mover is a mug's game... and it's alluding to an alternative dynamic; OB may be used, but only as a means to do something with energy gained elsewhere - ie. for torque. But it cannot of itself be a cause of gain in energy - OB is only useful as an actuator, not as a prime-mover or energy source.. The axle drives the jacks in the upper half cycle, and the jacks drive the axle in the lower half.
That's what MT41 seems to be saying to me, in light of my latest findings...
-
MrVibrating
- Addict
- Posts: 2879
- Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2010 12:19 am
- Location: W3
re: Toad Elevating Moment
Well, finally got to testing last night and very quickly discovered my mistake:
I'd only considered half the integrals (again!). I was mis-framing the cycle as dropping a weight in the lower 180° arc, and re-lifting it in the upper arc.
Of course, that's a nonsense; the complete cycle needs to drop AND LIFT through the lower arc (dropping radially while lifting circumferentially).. simultaneously.
Sorting THAT out, so that the motion will perpetuate itself, would seem to require an extra dimension.
Sifting through the pieces of this particular brain-fart, there's still a loose end or two to tie up (at least for myself):
- i need to fully grasp the restrictions on the amount of work that can be done by a radial (ie. linear) translation under centrifugal force - how exactly does the amount of work that can be extracted from a radially-flung mass (and so fed back to the rotor) balance against the cost to the rotor? Presumably there's a simple way to express this relationship, but i'm not there yet.
For example, suppose we have a rotor with a single radial linear rail, running from axle to rim. A free-sliding weight runs along it. In the exact center of the rotor is a flywheel. A thread connects the weight to a spool on the flywheel.
Hence the thread acts as a rip-chord, accelerating the flywheel as the sliding weight is flung outwards by centrifugal force.
My dilemma here concerns the net energies of the system with and without the thread attached. They should be the same. Yet they're not!
Assuming zero friction, say we give the wheel 1J of RKE, with the thread unattached:
- the initial speed of the wheel drops as the weight slides outwards, conserving angular momentum and thus energy; the wheel still has 1J.
- but re-run this with the chord attached, and as the weight slides out and accelerates the flywheel, the system's energy increases! If the flywheel winds downwards on a screw-thread, then when it runs out and tightens, it slams its energy into the wheel, accelerating it..
How can this be?
With NO chord, the weight slides out, so the wheel slows, retaining net energy.
WITH the chord, exactly the same thing happens, except we also accelerate the flywheel.
Presumably then, to balance the rise in energy on the flywheel, the rotor must slow more as the weight slides out, than it would without the chord connected. Yet this seems to defy logic - the sliding weight has the same mass and travels the same radial distance in both scenarios.
In a nutshell, with the chord attached we're merely harnessing energy that previously went uncollected. A radial fling is equivalent to a drop - and if we drop a brick without capturing its energy, it is wasted. But if we attach a chord and flywheel, the brick still drops, yet we've harvested and conserved the energy generated.
Again, for clarity, it's easy to presume that the wheel's RKE is tapped off in direct proportion to the flywheel's gain, however that conclusion seems hard to reconcile with the results of the no-chord condition!? Surely a few mg of string cannot significantly increase the system's net energy!? On the other hand, if the chords are disconnected, the system does the same amount of work in sliding the weight outwards. And obviously, if the chords or flywheel are locked in place, no further work is done, but the system's energy doesn't decrease..
Lastly, i've come to conclude that there IS no fundamental distinction to be had between direct-drive vs over-balancing torques. Indeed, OB can be viewed as perhaps the cleanest implementation of a direct drive mechanism. It's ultimately a facile distinction, and a false dichotomy... probably.. (though it's hard to be sure about anything in this game)..
Edit: wrt to last point, the obvious exception is CF workloads, as discussed above. But for purely gravitational gradients, direct-drive vs OB is incidental to the thermodynamics, notwithstanding that DD generally involves more friction.
I'd only considered half the integrals (again!). I was mis-framing the cycle as dropping a weight in the lower 180° arc, and re-lifting it in the upper arc.
Of course, that's a nonsense; the complete cycle needs to drop AND LIFT through the lower arc (dropping radially while lifting circumferentially).. simultaneously.
Sorting THAT out, so that the motion will perpetuate itself, would seem to require an extra dimension.
Sifting through the pieces of this particular brain-fart, there's still a loose end or two to tie up (at least for myself):
- i need to fully grasp the restrictions on the amount of work that can be done by a radial (ie. linear) translation under centrifugal force - how exactly does the amount of work that can be extracted from a radially-flung mass (and so fed back to the rotor) balance against the cost to the rotor? Presumably there's a simple way to express this relationship, but i'm not there yet.
For example, suppose we have a rotor with a single radial linear rail, running from axle to rim. A free-sliding weight runs along it. In the exact center of the rotor is a flywheel. A thread connects the weight to a spool on the flywheel.
Hence the thread acts as a rip-chord, accelerating the flywheel as the sliding weight is flung outwards by centrifugal force.
My dilemma here concerns the net energies of the system with and without the thread attached. They should be the same. Yet they're not!
Assuming zero friction, say we give the wheel 1J of RKE, with the thread unattached:
- the initial speed of the wheel drops as the weight slides outwards, conserving angular momentum and thus energy; the wheel still has 1J.
- but re-run this with the chord attached, and as the weight slides out and accelerates the flywheel, the system's energy increases! If the flywheel winds downwards on a screw-thread, then when it runs out and tightens, it slams its energy into the wheel, accelerating it..
How can this be?
With NO chord, the weight slides out, so the wheel slows, retaining net energy.
WITH the chord, exactly the same thing happens, except we also accelerate the flywheel.
Presumably then, to balance the rise in energy on the flywheel, the rotor must slow more as the weight slides out, than it would without the chord connected. Yet this seems to defy logic - the sliding weight has the same mass and travels the same radial distance in both scenarios.
In a nutshell, with the chord attached we're merely harnessing energy that previously went uncollected. A radial fling is equivalent to a drop - and if we drop a brick without capturing its energy, it is wasted. But if we attach a chord and flywheel, the brick still drops, yet we've harvested and conserved the energy generated.
Again, for clarity, it's easy to presume that the wheel's RKE is tapped off in direct proportion to the flywheel's gain, however that conclusion seems hard to reconcile with the results of the no-chord condition!? Surely a few mg of string cannot significantly increase the system's net energy!? On the other hand, if the chords are disconnected, the system does the same amount of work in sliding the weight outwards. And obviously, if the chords or flywheel are locked in place, no further work is done, but the system's energy doesn't decrease..
Lastly, i've come to conclude that there IS no fundamental distinction to be had between direct-drive vs over-balancing torques. Indeed, OB can be viewed as perhaps the cleanest implementation of a direct drive mechanism. It's ultimately a facile distinction, and a false dichotomy... probably.. (though it's hard to be sure about anything in this game)..
Edit: wrt to last point, the obvious exception is CF workloads, as discussed above. But for purely gravitational gradients, direct-drive vs OB is incidental to the thermodynamics, notwithstanding that DD generally involves more friction.
-
MrVibrating
- Addict
- Posts: 2879
- Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2010 12:19 am
- Location: W3
Crikey, adding CF into the mix really opens up the floodgates of possibilities - it's just hit me that you can also 'over-balance' with respect to CF...
So in any event, using CF and/or gravitational interactions, the question of direct-drive vs OB can be reduced to the issue of friction. I think. At least notwithstanding any other considerations..
So in any event, using CF and/or gravitational interactions, the question of direct-drive vs OB can be reduced to the issue of friction. I think. At least notwithstanding any other considerations..
re: Toad Elevating Moment
If you reduce everything to its simplest terms in regards to CF: In order for CF to be the important and driving factor in a wheel, it must give an advantage. Assuming CF is that golden chalice, I see two ways it could be possible to take advantage of CF in the real world:
1. CF weight moves outwards, doing more work that it loses in rotational KE.
2. Pulling the rotating weights in against CF causes more KE than the work it takes to do so.
The above 2 tests also have to be done with variable radius weights, and also fixed radius weights like the Milkovic oscillator. Using the lessons learned from the Milkovic Osc., I believe the energy spent has to be controlled so as not to deviate the path of the rotating weights too much. (Or in the case of the rotating batteries, perhaps they have to be deviated).
Sounds easy....
Kaine
1. CF weight moves outwards, doing more work that it loses in rotational KE.
2. Pulling the rotating weights in against CF causes more KE than the work it takes to do so.
The above 2 tests also have to be done with variable radius weights, and also fixed radius weights like the Milkovic oscillator. Using the lessons learned from the Milkovic Osc., I believe the energy spent has to be controlled so as not to deviate the path of the rotating weights too much. (Or in the case of the rotating batteries, perhaps they have to be deviated).
Sounds easy....
Kaine
re: Toad Elevating Moment
It is refreshing to read your posts vibrator.
What you are both talking about is the need to break symmetry, in order to gain energy in a rotating system - most of us explore shifting masses in & out [changing radius] on the same radial to quantify & explore the relationships & symmetry between KE [1/2mv^2], Inertia = mr^2, & Cpf = mv^2/r.
jim_mich went a step further to find a symmetry break - his proposed solution is to shift masses in & out but also forward & backwards in relation to the wheel frame of reference - because two masses that have the same velocity at the same radius, if one [thru the use of a force e.g. Cpf] moves in & forward whilst the other moves out & backwards (or visa versa) then it can be arranged that the system inertia is not increased [i.e. distance dependent controlled by gearing].
But the two masses which previously had the same velocity (as they shared the same radius) now have the same average velocity [as velocity is linearly related to radius, all else being equal] but their individual velocities are quite different during transition - the forward moving one higher than the rear moving one - since KE is a function of velocity, for a period the total KE of the two masses increases - this is the basis of the jim_mich formula & his mechanical Maxwell's demon that he proposes.
The issue to me is what happens when the masses either retrace back to original positions again OR swap places as he proposes - can an energy symmetry break be retained & not be given back again - it seems it might if the wheel were to slow down for a period or even stop while the second stage reset transition happened.
Just my thoughts, based on my own experiments over the years with these same variables & inputs.
What you are both talking about is the need to break symmetry, in order to gain energy in a rotating system - most of us explore shifting masses in & out [changing radius] on the same radial to quantify & explore the relationships & symmetry between KE [1/2mv^2], Inertia = mr^2, & Cpf = mv^2/r.
jim_mich went a step further to find a symmetry break - his proposed solution is to shift masses in & out but also forward & backwards in relation to the wheel frame of reference - because two masses that have the same velocity at the same radius, if one [thru the use of a force e.g. Cpf] moves in & forward whilst the other moves out & backwards (or visa versa) then it can be arranged that the system inertia is not increased [i.e. distance dependent controlled by gearing].
But the two masses which previously had the same velocity (as they shared the same radius) now have the same average velocity [as velocity is linearly related to radius, all else being equal] but their individual velocities are quite different during transition - the forward moving one higher than the rear moving one - since KE is a function of velocity, for a period the total KE of the two masses increases - this is the basis of the jim_mich formula & his mechanical Maxwell's demon that he proposes.
The issue to me is what happens when the masses either retrace back to original positions again OR swap places as he proposes - can an energy symmetry break be retained & not be given back again - it seems it might if the wheel were to slow down for a period or even stop while the second stage reset transition happened.
Just my thoughts, based on my own experiments over the years with these same variables & inputs.
re: Toad Elevating Moment
spin constant rotating weights is the answer cf does help on the fall and inward spin helps to conteract cf on the lift ,really as i see it as bessler said nothing ever reachs a point of rest in fact u must prevent it ,make the weights spin and create energy 12 oclock accross the zenith 3 out and heavy 6naturally closer to the centre 9 reload bow all going in the same direction every thing working together simple but not easy.these wheels seem to have a memory anything that stays in a position will develope a negative torque weight and render the energy you have created too weak to turn ,just my humble opinin Andy.
Only by making mistakes can you truly learn
-
justsomeone
- Addict
- Posts: 2098
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 5:21 pm
re: Toad Elevating Moment
Mr. Vibrating, I just viewed your profile. With a name like Mr. Vibrating and an occupation of organ donor, I can just imagine what organ your donating. ;)
Welcome to the forum.
Welcome to the forum.
. I can assure the reader that there is something special behind the stork's bills.
re: Toad Elevating Moment
A little late with the "Welcome to the forum" are we?
Eleven more days and "MrViberating" will celebrate his 3rd anniversary of being a member. :-)
Eleven more days and "MrViberating" will celebrate his 3rd anniversary of being a member. :-)
-
justsomeone
- Addict
- Posts: 2098
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 5:21 pm
re: Toad Elevating Moment
29 posts in 3 years, yet he speaks so well. I think we need more of him and less of me! My greeny to him never the less.
. I can assure the reader that there is something special behind the stork's bills.
-
MrVibrating
- Addict
- Posts: 2879
- Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2010 12:19 am
- Location: W3
Re: re: Toad Elevating Moment
Yup these are the kinds of questions i'm wrestling with.. however this relationship between the respective energies of the angular and radial paths is the key issue, and the one i was hoping this alternating CF + G net force might be able to exploit.Tarsier79 wrote:If you reduce everything to its simplest terms in regards to CF: In order for CF to be the important and driving factor in a wheel, it must give an advantage. Assuming CF is that golden chalice, I see two ways it could be possible to take advantage of CF in the real world:
1. CF weight moves outwards, doing more work that it loses in rotational KE.
2. Pulling the rotating weights in against CF causes more KE than the work it takes to do so.
The above 2 tests also have to be done with variable radius weights, and also fixed radius weights like the Milkovic oscillator. Using the lessons learned from the Milkovic Osc., I believe the energy spent has to be controlled so as not to deviate the path of the rotating weights too much. (Or in the case of the rotating batteries, perhaps they have to be deviated).
Sounds easy....
Kaine
I'm still doodling with it. There's a finite number of permutations possible so i'm working through the integrals in step-wise, quasi-static sequences. No banana yet but it's an eminently tractable problem, just a process of elimination..
I must admit i haven't looked too closely at Milkovic's work - i had a quick gander some years ago and was as dismissive of it as of any gravity wheel, this, before i'd become familiar with the compelling case of Mr B. here... Still, while i can see why pendu-levers might seem superficially interesting to Bessler enthusiasts, i didn't see any evidence of gains in my brief foray there..
I'm now somewhat more open to the suggestion, up to a point - for example Bessler was quite insistent everything must go around together to make a gain viable. Of course both oscillation and rotation are sinusoidal with respect to the F x D relations, with the exception that full rotation offers a host of additional features (such as the force cancellation i highlight above) not found in the simple oscillator. Whether this distinction persists beyond further investigations remains to be seen... but for now it seems safe to presume that a pendulum able, for example, to cancel G with CF is, to all practical intents, a rotor... still, with two or three power curves interacting i suppose there might be room for interesting overlaps..!
-
MrVibrating
- Addict
- Posts: 2879
- Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2010 12:19 am
- Location: W3
Re: re: Toad Elevating Moment
Cheers and yes, i'm trying to tackle this from both the abstract and practical ends, to hopefully meet somewhere in the middle.Fletcher wrote:It is refreshing to read your posts vibrator.
What you are both talking about is the need to break symmetry, in order to gain energy in a rotating system - most of us explore shifting masses in & out [changing radius] on the same radial to quantify & explore the relationships & symmetry between KE [1/2mv^2], Inertia = mr^2, & Cpf = mv^2/r.
jim_mich went a step further to find a symmetry break - his proposed solution is to shift masses in & out but also forward & backwards in relation to the wheel frame of reference - because two masses that have the same velocity at the same radius, if one [thru the use of a force e.g. Cpf] moves in & forward whilst the other moves out & backwards (or visa versa) then it can be arranged that the system inertia is not increased [i.e. distance dependent controlled by gearing].
But the two masses which previously had the same velocity (as they shared the same radius) now have the same average velocity [as velocity is linearly related to radius, all else being equal] but their individual velocities are quite different during transition - the forward moving one higher than the rear moving one - since KE is a function of velocity, for a period the total KE of the two masses increases - this is the basis of the jim_mich formula & his mechanical Maxwell's demon that he proposes.
The issue to me is what happens when the masses either retrace back to original positions again OR swap places as he proposes - can an energy symmetry break be retained & not be given back again - it seems it might if the wheel were to slow down for a period or even stop while the second stage reset transition happened.
Just my thoughts, based on my own experiments over the years with these same variables & inputs.
I've found that logical symmetry breaks are easy from a purely theoretical standpoint - for example if we can over-balance and reset while only descending thru the G field, these off-axis translations are free with respect to it, and actually negative in terms of the RKE gained. Yet a practical mechanism that can accomplish this is altogether harder to pin down.
The same is likely true this time. It's these pesky Lorentz symmetries that always spoil the fun! I mean if you sit on the rim of a vertically-rotating wheel, you're experiencing the mechanical equivalent of an AC electrical force. Bingo, geddin, bob's yer proverbial... until you try to actually move, anywhere...
But we all KNOW there's a disunity to be had here, somewhere...
Jim's idea sounds interesting but i'm not getting the full picture yet: in/out = radial, but when you say back and forwards with respect to the wheel's FOR - do you mean in the axial plane (depth) in the 2D plan?
-
MrVibrating
- Addict
- Posts: 2879
- Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2010 12:19 am
- Location: W3
Re: re: Toad Elevating Moment
Cheers, not totally following that cycle, but spinning the weights, possibly with an off-center of mass, certainly adds another dynamic. If you can plot out a gain on paper then it's certainly worth pursuing.. As you allude tho, finding a mechanism that can coordinate the gain without consuming it is the difficulty!Andyb wrote:spin constant rotating weights is the answer cf does help on the fall and inward spin helps to conteract cf on the lift ,really as i see it as bessler said nothing ever reachs a point of rest in fact u must prevent it ,make the weights spin and create energy 12 oclock accross the zenith 3 out and heavy 6naturally closer to the centre 9 reload bow all going in the same direction every thing working together simple but not easy.these wheels seem to have a memory anything that stays in a position will develope a negative torque weight and render the energy you have created too weak to turn ,just my humble opinin Andy.