Another claim to a working device...

[Grimer]

The action principle of the GPM reminds me of that of the vanishing Chinaman puzzles. The single pendulum appears to only fall once per cycle. In reality it falls twice.
The second fall is hidden within the "fall" of the 7 weight end of the compound pendulum.

[Tarsier79]

There would be a lot of angular momentum, if...

No, I did not sabotage the sim. In fact I was quite excited when I pressed play on GPM2, untill it stopped just before 6:00.

If you look at the sim with COE in mind, in terms of PE only, it makes sense. That is why I said this: Grimer, do you understand why both pendulums in the simulation come to exactly the same vertical height? If you do, then you understand the need to do some real world POP tests if you want to take this further. http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewt ... 289#124289

Best of luck with your POP tests!

[Grimer]

It doesn't make sense to me for the reasons I have given. It's FUBAR.

If you didn't sabotage it (and I was only joking) then you've set it up wrong. Can you correct it please or is it a fault in the program which is beyond your control.

[Tarsier79]

Grimer,

Last one for the moment: my data is reset in 2 days.

I have shown it paused at the maximum PE for both pendulums at the second bounce this time. (first, third, fourth etc should still give the same result).
http://youtu.be/gElswH2-0Yc

After 2 bounces:

Simple pendulum(100g) loses 0.433m
Compound pendulum (imbalance of 100g) gains 0.433m

Comparatively speaking, we have an energy loss/gain of 0

To me, this says the sim is set up perfectly, within the paramaters of its programming.

Perhaps you could show the math that proves it should achieve a gain in energy?

[Grimer]

Good heavens, man. Read what I've written. You've swallowed a camel and you're straining at the gnat.

What on earth has happened to the mass of the simple pendulum? It seems prone to the same suicide problem as your monkey. It's a Norwegian Blue - a dead parrot.

That beam is balanced as near as dammit. It will not slow down as shown unless the 1 part of the 1..7 weight combination has evaporated. You don't need maths to see that - merely common sense.

Forget about the bloody trees and look at the wood.

And now I'm going back to bed. See you in the morning when you've has time to come to your senses.

[Tarsier79]

OK, now you are talking about GPM2, which has the same problem as GPM.

The masses aren't quite balanced though, are they. The energy imparted for rotation is the difference between them, as when they come together it = 0(as shown above). So, 100g x 5cm x 9.8 = 0.049J (not very much).

Now take the COM of the 100g, and its theoretical balancing 100g(located at the 800g). As soon as you start rotating, you are lifting the imbalance COM. It is at its maximum negative torque when the simple pendulum reaches around 6:00. Again, the sim makes sense to me. The sim is also acting how it should under COE (yes, I know that annoys some people, but what maths do you think they used in programming?)

I think the reason it is difficult for some people to grasp GPE, is that if you hold something at 90 degrees perfectly still, physics say you expend no energy, when in fact you are physically making an effort, which is using your bodys energy to keep it there. Also walking up a hill, there is a most efficient path for us to take to expend a balance of the least amount of time and energy to reach the top. Physics says it takes the same amount regardless of the path. IMO it is this difference between physics and logic that causes us to make logical mistakes.

[Grimer]

delete

[Grimer]

OK, now you are talking about GPM2, which has the same problem as GPM.

The masses aren't quite balanced though, are they. The energy imparted for rotation is the difference between them, as when they come together it = 0(as shown above). So, 100g x 5cm x 9.8 = 0.049J (not very much).

Now take the COM of the 100g, and its theoretical balancing 100g(located at the 800g). As soon as you start rotating, you are lifting the imbalance COM. It is at its maximum negative torque when the simple pendulum reaches around 6:00. Again, the sim makes sense to me. The sim is also acting how it should under COE (yes, I know that annoys some people, but what maths do you think they used in programming?)

I think the reason it is difficult for some people to grasp GPE, is that if you hold something at 90 degrees perfectly still, physics say you expend no energy, when in fact you are physically making an effort, which is using your bodys energy to keep it there. Also walking up a hill, there is a most efficient path for us to take to expend a balance of the least amount of time and energy to reach the top. Physics says it takes the same amount regardless of the path. IMO it is this difference between physics and logic that causes us to make logical mistakes.

I'm afraid I read your post in rather a hurry this morning and concentrated on the bit in bold which I thought showed uncommon understanding.
The arm is a particularly good example because as it gets tired the lifting of the load by the action of the arm and the falling of the load by the action of gravity becomes manifest as a visible trembling. The arm in doing work (the integrated lifts in the up direction) and gravity is doing work. The two works balance each other. When it's an iron pillar which is holding the load up then the up and down motions are so far below the threshold of perception that their dynamic character is ignored.

I try to draw people's attention to this hidden work balance with the following example. Let the simple and compound pendulums fall freely. Suppose the compound 8 weight falls 7 units. Then down work of 56 units have been expended. Suppose one now pushes the weights back up to their starting position. Then up work of 56 units have been expended thus neutralizing the down gravity work. So we have put 56 units of angular momentum into the system merely by keeping the left hand side of the beam still. I'm not sure what one could call this work. Virtual work perhaps - like a virtual image?
It a bit like vaccination which prevents you from having to recover from an illness you would otherwise have caught.

Perhaps I can clear up our relative positions by asking specific questions.
I'll start off slowly with this one, a crucial one.

Do you agree that the Sim makes a gross error by not attaching the 1 weight to the 7 weight and therefore using up all the impact derive angular momentum in lifting the unbalanced 1 part of the 8 weight?

Is there any part of that question you do not understand?

[Tarsier79]

Yes, which sim are you talking about? In GPM2 the weight is attached to it. Reattaching the simple pendulum to the compound is pointless unless you are at a point of advantage.

[Grimer]

Yes, which sim are you talking about? In GPM2 the weight is attached to it. Reattaching the simple pendulum to the compound is pointless unless you are at a point of advantage.

LOL. It wasn't the sim then. That's a relief.

Yes it was GPM2 I was talking about.

I took me some time to see why you might think re-attaching the simple pendulum to the compound pendulum was pointless.

No doubt this explains why it hasn't been seen before.

Thanks very much for your co-operation KT. It's shown me where the stumbling block lies.

[Tarsier79]

I thought we might come to a mutual understanding of the design. Maybe next time, eh?

Well, As long as you take something away. I think I have.

Cheers

K.

[Grimer]

...
Also walking up a hill, there is a most efficient path for us to take to expend a balance of the least amount of time and energy to reach the top. Physics says it takes the same amount regardless of the path. IMO it is this difference between physics and logic that causes us to make logical mistakes.

Fascinating - really fascinating - and in terms of second derivative energy they are right of course.

This takes me right back to my discussion with Fletcher on the brachistochrone. No wonder he went silent at the end.

Physics only deals in second derivative of motion when it comes to generating energy from gravity. Goodness me. I really have discovered something. The third derivative is not seen as energy at all. No wonder there's been no progress. The conservation of angular momentum is not seen as the conservation of an independent energy - independent in the same way as the conservation of heat is seen as an independent form of energy. So if jerk is generated and transferred it never appears in the second derivative books as it passes from one object to another. Yikes!!

When people look at RAR Mark 2 all they see is a weight going around a closed path and they "know" (or they think they know) that no energy is to be obtained that way.

Thanks a million. You've really opened my eyes to what it being missed - and why.

[justsomeone]

All this self bloviating is making me nauseous . Build something Frank! Get off your butt and build an actual pop model! Also still waiting for the details on how the Keno model works ( details please ). If you cant , stop saying you know!

[Grimer]

I thought we might come to a mutual understanding of the design. Maybe next time, eh?

Well, As long as you take something away. I think I have.

Cheers

K.

Your post came in whilst I was drafting my second post. I certainly have taken something away. Thanks again.

Trouble is - you know your physics too well. It's a case when less is more - and there's more than enough "less" in the forum for everyone. ;-)

[Grimer]

I have seen an easy way to overcome the problem of imperfect recoil and move on from a Point of Principle design, the Mark 2, to a practical machine, the GPM - Mark 3.

I'll have to prepare some diagrams to make sure there are no flaws.

I'll be back.