Ep. IX: An Even More Newer Hope..

[MrVibrating]

I'd originally envisaged just using the hanging mass as a stator, like this:



..so all the pods would be heavy and interconnected with a chain or whatever, while the masses riding up and down them would share a separate interconnecting chain. So the CoR of the pods would tend towards the stable circular trajectory, while that of the masses could go off and do its own thing.

As things stand, isolating this particular system's momentum might make absolutely no difference, but it seems a good general preference, especially when inertia's the name of the game.. less stable perhaps, but then that was also one of Bessler's concerns, yet he insisted that stators precluded gains..

[daxwc]

ruggerodk:

daxwc wrote:

ruggerodk:

the height displacement is almost null.

But there is still lower mass to be picked up as a straight line is longer than a slanted one. A^2 + b^2 = c^2 ;)

Now if you could reverse that where the swing makes the mass rise in the bottom and therefore the total wheel top heavy.

You missed me there - what are you talking about?

X is longer than C meaning there is extra mass to be picked up or another way of putting it the wheel is bottom heavy.But if you could inverse your whole diagram the wheel would be top heavy and rotate if you could conserve a momentum increase.

[Fletcher]

Makes some sense, but there's some kind of disconnect between how i think about forces and how WM displays them. I think of a mass in freefall as weightless, but WM shows the force causing an acceleration, not the changing force felt by the mass as it accelerates. It shows max downforce on an upper weight even as it raises itself and a lower weight.

However it calculates forces, displacements certainly seem correct, and are basically self-interpreting - the mass moves or it don't - so i'm just gonna proceed by common sense and results.

Yes, I know what you mean. I guess the engineers and programmers who built the program were faced with what to visually show (empirically wise). Just because we have a program doesn't mean the brain can be parked in neutral all day ;7) So you have to apply the 'reasonability test' of does that look right and/or does it do what I'd expect. In this case it does as you point out.

[ruggerodk]

X is longer than C meaning there is extra mass to be picked up or another way of putting it the wheel is bottom heavy.But if you could inverse your whole diagram the wheel would be top heavy and rotate if you could conserve a momentum increase.

Ahhh - now I get what you mean. OK...I know that there is an ever so slighty (minimal) displacement of the bob towards the rim; I've put two dotted lines in the bottom of the right wheel..it's obviously so microscopic that it's hard to notice.

But - my idea was born from the fact, that a pole (with or without a bob) would like to 'rest' at an angle at 12 oc. And at 6 oc, it want to 'rest' at a straight vertical position = an axial movement (Z-plane)

Now, I imagined that this axial movement could 'adopt' the pull from CF at 6 oc, with a very small radial displacement of the bob.

And here's where I asked the Q's in my drawing:
How much push-force would this axial swing generate?
How much of the CF will it 'adopt'?

As it has it's own axial swing (perpendicular to the wheels rotation and CF swing), will this 'adoption' be added to or multiplying the axial swing?

If the bob is fixed and not released until 6 oc, my experiments gives me a very fast axial swing and loud 'bang'!

Perhaps someone could elaborate on the math her - my left brain is not that mature ;-)

regards ruggero ;-)

[MrVibrating]

Simplifying things down, the statorless geared Roberval reduces to this:



The lower mass can be any weight, so stability comes with an increased inertia, although alternatively it seems it could equally have its own pivot, while keeping its momentum isolated from earth.

As for the potential exploit, it seems increasingly that it, too, can be reduced down to a simpler concept - it's basically a rotary version of trying to make energy by shaking a stick with a sliding mass on it.

The only significant difference is that the inertial forces of the sliding mass would need to be unequal at opposite ends of the stick... and here's why:



Superimposing the circle representing the lower resting center of mass, we can see that CF flings the pod masses outside the center of rotation at the upper right side. The RPM is constant so CF gets higher out here - masses in this area are under greater force.

90° clockwise below, the mass then curves back inside the center of rotation, where CF forces are substantially lower.

So again, there is a force variation around a full cycle... and it could be arbitrarily large.

But whether it can perform work without draining the energy of rotation seems increasingly doubtful. I've a few more ideas to try yet though..

[daxwc]

ruggero:

If the bob is fixed and not released until 6 oc, my experiments gives me a very fast axial swing and loud 'bang'!

My turn to get lost. What is banging on what? If released at 6 o'clock how did it swing anywhere?

[MrVibrating]

X is longer than C meaning there is extra mass to be picked up or another way of putting it the wheel is bottom heavy.But if you could inverse your whole diagram the wheel would be top heavy and rotate if you could conserve a momentum increase.

Ahhh - now I get what you mean. OK...I know that there is an ever so slighty (minimal) displacement of the bob towards the rim; I've put two dotted lines in the bottom of the right wheel..it's obviously so microscopic that it's hard to notice.

But - my idea was born from the fact, that a pole (with or without a bob) would like to 'rest' at an angle at 12 oc. And at 6 oc, it want to 'rest' at a straight vertical position = an axial movement (Z-plane)

Now, I imagined that this axial movement could 'adopt' the pull from CF at 6 oc, with a very small radial displacement of the bob.

And here's where I asked the Q's in my drawing:
How much push-force would this axial swing generate?
How much of the CF will it 'adopt'?

As it has it's own axial swing (perpendicular to the wheels rotation and CF swing), will this 'adoption' be added to or multiplying the axial swing?

If the bob is fixed and not released until 6 oc, my experiments gives me a very fast axial swing and loud 'bang'!

Perhaps someone could elaborate on the math her - my left brain is not that mature ;-)

regards ruggero ;-)

He's right mate - the pole only straightens out if that allows a radial displacement, which means a GPE input.

Basically the same problem my idea's likely to come up against. I'm trying to counter-balance GPE costs, but that just shifts the source to RKE, due to the change in MoI.

So i'm also trying to balance the MoI - with masses connected in opposing pairs travelling inside and outside the CoR at the same time.

But what i'm finding is that even if the net MoI remains constant, braking against radial displacements (even equal opposite ones) - ie. extracting work from them - drains the net system momentum.

And doubtless if that can be solved, there'll be yet more hurdles...

[ruggerodk]

My turn to get lost. What is banging on what? If released at 6 o'clock how did it swing anywhere?

CF make the pole swing - from backside of the wheel to frontside: Axial swing.

The 'bang' is when the bob hit the frontside.

regards ruggero ;-)

[daxwc]

Ok I understand. Tell me is there any difference in kinetic energy from a mass dropped straight down compared to kinetic energy of a pendulum bob at 6 0’clock other than the vector.

[ruggerodk]

I'm not sure what you're getting at - why do you ask?