NEWS FLASH!! Fcdriver has a working wheel!!!!

[Grimer]

Fcdriver still got a green dot from me as well, but it take a few more to get up to two.

I've given him one so he's up to two now.

I always believe in backing Taleb's black swans. ;-)

[11Turion]

If you are using DC electricity for almost anything, that involves coils, motors, capacitors or whatever, it is the VOLTAGE hitting the cap, coil or motor (not as much) that is the most important. Try using this:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/DC-DC-Boost-Con ... 2357f20bba

Using it with my 3 Battery generating system, I can extended battery life significantly simply by rotating the batteries.

[Grimer]

Suppose the speed of a 360° pendulum at 5 o'clock is 10 and at 11 o'clock is 2 .

Then the energy at 5 o'clock will be proportional to 10² (=100) and at 2 o'clock will be proportional to 2² (= 4)

Suppose we reduce the speed at 5 o'clock to 8, i.e. we reduce it by 20%

The energy at 5 o'clock is now 10² - 8² = 36 which is available to put back into the mass when it reaches 11 o'clock.

So the energy at 11 o'clock will now be sqr(4 + 36) = 6.3 which is a proportionate increase in speed of ((6.3)-4))/4 x 100 = 57.5%

So we are speeding up the mass more than we are slowing it down

We are gaining angular momentum. We are gaining energy.

I think this must be how and why pop Kewenie's wheel works.

I'm pleased to find the above maths proof that angular momentum increases when one transfers energy from high speed intervals of the bob to low speed intervals.

I believed intuitively this must be so which is why I started a Trevor doppelganger thread on the Kiiking rider - but I hadn't expected to find such a simple proof.

In that Kiiking thread the idea of using a spring starts about here:
http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewt ... 087#136087

FCDriver has thrown up another possibility for transferring energy from one part of a wheel to another by using EM. The question I ask myself is, Could one also use a lever for this? I think the answer is yes since the use of a lever doesn't necessarily involve moving mass up a NG gradient. One can think of it as a transmission channel for a elastic wave in contrast to a wire which is a channel for an EM wave.

[Grimer]

Levers and cams, eh!

"I think he's got it. I really think he's got it."

Why?

Because if one has a lever system which moves a high level weight moving slowly 11 and 12, say, by a low level weight moving fast between 5 and 6, say,

and if one arranges for the high level weight to move more than the low level weight (which one can since the force on the low level weight is greater than on the high level weight) then one is increasing the angular momentum and so gaining energy.

It's an alternative to using springs or an electromagnetic transfer of energy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uVmU3iANbgk

[ovaron]

Suppose the speed of a 360° pendulum at 5 o'clock is 10 and at 11 o'clock is 2 .

Then the energy at 5 o'clock will be proportional to 10² (=100) and at 2 o'clock will be proportional to 2² (= 4)

Suppose we reduce the speed at 5 o'clock to 8, i.e. we reduce it by 20%

The energy at 5 o'clock is now 10² - 8² = 36 which is available to put back into the mass when it reaches 11 o'clock.

So the energy at 11 o'clock will now be sqr(4 + 36) = 6.3 which is a proportionate increase in speed of ((6.3)-4))/4 x 100 = 57.5%

So we are speeding up the mass more than we are slowing it down

We are gaining angular momentum. We are gaining energy.

I think this must be how and why pop Kewenie's wheel works.

I'm pleased to find the above maths proof that angular momentum increases when one transfers energy from high speed intervals of the bob to low speed intervals.

There might be an error in this mathematical proof: If you slow down the speed at 5 o'clock from 10 to 8, the pendulum will not have a speed of 2 at 11 o'clock.

[Grimer]

I agree the specific values are incorrect but I believe the principle stands, i.e. if energy is taken for a high speed segment and passed to a low speed segment then there in an increase in the angular momentum of the pendulum.

[Fcdriver]

Lifting at a slower rate greatly reduces the force against the wheel, but the 50% increase by leverage pushing down, gives the mechanical advantage, for usable power! Sorry for any delay of a video, my pride of not wanting to show a video of my test stand with evidence of other attempts vs a pretty nicely painted product. I feel the presentation of this is very important!

[MrVibrating]

@Grimer

Speed isn't conserved, and its relationship to KE is non-linear - lobbing 20% off of a high speed, then adding 20% to a lower speed, loses energy (although it'd actually remain as a residual in whatever the medium used).

Obviously, divvy up energy in the same way and it's robbing Peter to pay Paul. But doing it with speed means taking out more energy that we're putting back in..

[Grimer]

I agree the specific values are incorrect but I believe the principle stands, i.e. if energy is taken for a high speed segment and passed to a low speed segment then there in an increase in the angular momentum of the pendulum.

By so doing you are transducing 3rd order derivative energy into 2nd order derivative energy, you are transducing a higher level of variance into a lower level of variance, you are reducing between batch variance to zero and increasing within batch variance. You are "burning up" the 3rd derivative energy. When it's all burnt up the wheel will be rotating at a constant RPM.

It's as though the wheel had heat energy and you took some of the heat energy and transduced it to angular momentum (2nd order derivative energy). Heat is merely a very, very, very high derivative of displacement with respect to time.

[Grimer]

Lifting at a slower rate greatly reduces the force against the wheel, but the 50% increase by leverage pushing down, gives the mechanical advantage, for usable power! Sorry for any delay of a video, my pride of not wanting to show a video of my test stand with evidence of other attempts vs a pretty nicely painted product. I feel the presentation of this is very important!

As my first section head used to say to me,

"Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good, Grimer."

The first person to get a video of a working device on YouTube is going to be the winner in this race. Patents are so yesterday. By all means patent but get your foot in the door as soon as possible. It will go viral when people copy it and realise it works -
assuming it does work of course. ;-)

[Tarsier79]

Grimer, I don't understand your "simple" proof. What radius is the weight? what values are the weights? What are their specific speeds? Can you supply a diagram with a short but informative description?

I agree the specific values are incorrect but I believe the principle stands, i.e. if energy is taken for a high speed segment and passed to a low speed segment then there in an increase in the angular momentum of the pendulum.

If the math is flawed, fix it. How can you possibly state the principle stands by producing incorrect values? Show us the math. If I feel it is good and worthwile, I may help persue a mechanism to show proof of gain.

[Grimer]

Grimer, I don't understand your "simple" proof. What radius is the weight? what values are the weights? What are their specific speeds? Can you supply a diagram with a short but informative description?

I agree the specific values are incorrect but I believe the principle stands, i.e. if energy is taken for a high speed segment and passed to a low speed segment then there in an increase in the angular momentum of the pendulum.

If the math is flawed, fix it. How can you possibly state the principle stands by producing incorrect values? Show us the math. If I feel it is good and worthwhile, I may help pursue a mechanism to show proof of gain.

The maths in the example isn't flawed and doesn't need fixing. What was wrong was was my applying those particular values to a 360° pendulum.

I don't know offhand the ratio of the momentum at 11 o'clock to the momentum at 5 o'clock. I'm sure you don't either. :-)

What is important is that they are significantly different. The momentum a 5 is much greater than the momentum at 11. So I just picked two values which were significantly different to illustrate the principle.

Sure enough a pedantic critic (not you) comes forth who can't see the wood for the trees and picks me up on that.

Apologies if I confused you for not explaining myself clearly in the first place.

[ME]

I didn't follow the discussion, but invade anyway.

As far as I know the momentum ratio equals velocity ratio, thus:
When the velocity at 12-o' is 0 then via mgh=0.5*mv^2 one could determine relatively easy the expected velocity ratio.
Sqrt{ (E[11o']-E[12o']) / (E[5o']-E[12o']) }
If I didn't make a mistake then it should be something like, 1 : Sqrt{ [K+1-sqrt(0.75)] / [K+1+sqrt(0.75)] } -->for K=0, about 1 : 0.268
notes:
That K is used when the velocity is not 0 at 12-o'.
height(12-o')=>Cos(0)= + 1
height(11-o')=>Cos(30)= + sqrt(0.75)
height(5-o')=>Cos(150)= - sqrt(0.75)

[Tarsier79]

Frank, I don't understand why you think that theory will give you motion.

You take some energy from the mass at 6 and give to the 11 mass to propel it over the top. The mass moving from 6 now doesn't have the energy to make it to 11, and only makes it to 10. You now need to extract even more energy from 6 to push the 10 over the top. With even more reduced energy, the 6 mass only swings to 8...

[Grimer]

I sympathise with you puzzlement but the thing to concentrate on is the fact that the maths says there is a overall increase in angular momentum. What was that quotation of Whiteheads? I'll have to search.

Ah yes. Here it is.

........The art of reasoning consists in getting hold of the
........subject at the right end, of seizing the few general
........ideas that illuminate the whole, and of persistently
........organizing all subsidiary facts around them.
........Nobody can be a good reasoner unless he has realized the
........importance of getting hold of the big ideas and
........hanging onto them like grim death .

........A.N.Whitehead

........Presidential Address to the London Branch of the
........Mathematical Association., 1914

I know you've seen that before - but it can stand repetition. :-)

Now back to your post.

The mass moving from 6 now doesn't have the energy to make it to 11, and only makes it to 10.

This puzzled me at first but then I thought back to the Keenie Wheel.
Do you remember? The inner and outer wheel were loosely connected. The inner wheel was free to rotate relative to the outer wheel but only to a limited extent. Likewise the weights at 5 and 11 are also effectively loosely connected so after a small delay the 11 is going to drag the 5 around.

The idea you have to seize is the fact that due to the transfer of energy

the angular momentum of the system as a whole has increased

i.e. energy has been gained.

Exactly how is for experts in ingenuity to work out.
Bessler did, Keenie obviously did and I'm confident that one of our ingenious mechanics will do so as well - eventually.