Gravity assisted Normal Energy

[ME]

"The minute a weight or weights on a wheel lose height, even by the slightest amount, the wheel will not turn perpetually as the combined mass preservation would be compromised and a reset would become impossible.

If a mechanism doesn't loose GPE then there's no intent for the wheel (or mechanism) to rotate (example: Roberval). Therefore I think it should "borrow" or loose some height which should be restored after a complete cycle.

The scissor-mechanism I posted in the other thread can be adjusted (by adding a spring for example) to let it rotate 3.9.. times from that depicted position, even though that spring is not pre-loaded. You are correct it's not a winner, as on close examination the top weight had lost a small amount of height at each cycle -that was a bit disappointing-

I assure you that this "Normal Force" is evident and accessible.

What do you mean by "Normal Force" by the way (not its technical but your alternate meaning): My guess, the attempt of turning GPE against itself?

[KAS]

ME asked:

"What do you mean by "Normal Force" by the way (not its technical but your alternate meaning): My guess, the attempt of turning GPE against itself?"

Correct. Normal force, to give its scientific name, is the force nature sometimes deploys to prevent 2 masses from attracting.

Some times this requires obvious energy input i.e a humming bird flapping to utilise air pressure to prevent its own weight/mass from succumbing to gravity. Energy = nectar.
Or static "normal" force (energy not immediately obvious) when a grounded mass maintains its fixed position in a gravity field. This force is evident in everything that contains height maintaining mass. Grounded or not.
(Newton's 3rd Law)

There is a school of thought that believes that these two opposing forces are like Siamese twins; kill one and the other dies too. I don't subscribe to this.

If I can devise an apperatus to prove this, I think it will be a major leap forward in our quest.

[ME]

As far as I understand "Normal Force" scientifically: it's the force provided by the supporting structure - basically it prevents an object from sinking into the surface, sort of structural back-pressure, and therefore perpendicular to the surface area. It could be at the contact-point of a ball in space at the moment it bounces against some solid wall at some angle (thus without gravity)

There is a school of thought that believes that these two opposing forces are like Siamese twins; kill one and the other dies too. I don't subscribe to this.

Now I think of it, I guess 'normal force' is a similar phenomena as static friction: equal and opposite until some maximum is reached.
A ball on a sugar cube is held up by the structure of sugar crystals. Add water, the structure becomes fluid and unable to maintain its structure and away is the normal force to keep the ball at a certain height.
Or, delete the planet and things start to float.

I'm not sure if a reaction force (Newton 3rd) is always a "Normal Force" (perhaps it is).
At least the reaction force should be equal&opposite when things are stationary, because otherwise it wouldn't remain stationary and simply should accelerate with only an action-force.

-I guess I'm in that 'Siamese twin'-school -


Perhaps it's possible to 'steal' or 'eat' some potential energy from the structure to keep a perpetual motion device running.
That would give a whole new meaning to one of the definitions of perpetual motion: "Until the parts wear out".

[KAS]

ME wrote;

"A ball on a sugar cube is held up by the structure of sugar crystals. Add water, the structure becomes fluid and unable to maintain its structure and away is the normal force to keep the ball at a certain height.
Or, delete the planet and things start to float".

I like this description. It kind of reinforces my theory that this hidden energy ( let's call it a force for now) has been around since the Big Bang yet academia is in denial that it:-
A. Can be extracted.
B. Is of any use.

The only way to remove this force is as you say, to remove the dominant mass responsible. Therefor, it complies with the laws of thermodynamics. It can't be created because it already exists. It can't be destroyed unless the earth disappears. But essentially, (and this is where my theory may be feesable), it can be transferred.
It is the only energy source available to us that is totally clean and sustainable.
If anyone can come up with another (law abiding) source of energy, I'm all ears.

I think if we prove it can be extracted, that alone would warrant recognition, irrespective of whether it can be utilised on a rotating structure.

[ME]

The only way to remove this force is as you say, to remove the dominant mass responsible.
...or structural collapse.

The energy responsible for any solid in providing a normal-force is molecular attraction, A solid is basically a sort of condensation of molecules.

Several options come to mind:
* Maybe it's possible to burn wood (use friction) at a molecular level (one layer at a time) to get our "free"-energy; - it can't be replenished and the machine would break a bit sooner than expected;
* Simulate (or learn from) some molecular supporting structures and translate it to a macroscopic-level;
* Something could be done with friction to produce local heat and water vapor pressure, which could be replenished by humidity during the rest of the rotation;

Perhaps only the first one seems remotely valid for Bessler's wheel; while the second one will yet be some other mechanical arrangement;

[KAS]

I've been trying to calculate the value of the resistance force there is on offer here. It appears that the total force ( Gf + Nf) works out at twice the mass density value (pendulum weight). A 1kg weight draws on the pivot by the same value. The pivot also applies resistance drawing the weight to the value of 1kg. This would suggest that the total tensile resistance between the 2 is 2kg. That seems very odd as how can a 1kg weight suddenly posess 2kg of tensile strain.
It also means that 1kg of tensile energy may be extracted without incroaching on the original Gf mass.
Common logic says how can this be? Also, what happens to the Nf when the pendulum cord is cut and the weight falls?

This is definitely messing with my head. Can't await to get started on this.

[ME]

But the NF is opposite of GF, so NF+GF=0 (must be that Siamese twin school :-)

*Also, what happens to the Nf when the pendulum cord is cut and the weight falls?

Perhaps to get you started:
Lets say a Mass(M) hangs on a elastic string, somewhere on that string there's another mass (m).
That string is cut and mass (M) falls to the ground while mass (m) remains attached.
Mass (M) will get an acceleration of 9.81 m/s² towards the ground, mass (m) will shoot straight up with an acceleration of 9.81*M/m.
When M=3, and m=1 then mass(m) shoots up with 29.4 m/s²
The force is of course m*a.

[Fletcher]

Just getting to yours and Mr V's threads KAS ..

Thought this old thread might be of some relevance to your discussion - dunno ?

http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewt ... 415#113415

Braess's Pardox

[mblx]

thanks Fletcher for pointing out the ols sims.
Kas topic name has reached a sensitive part of my brain..as the idea is on my ( only) topic.
the pendullum in a system is changing it's centre of gravity for as long as is oscilate. The initial energy invested is raising the pendulum to some high and then energy of the pendulum is disipated on friction on the pivot point and air resistance along his path. To maintain the oscilation then, is needed to compensate the friction losses by adding sometimes an external input.
But the energy of the pendullum is not consumed by the action of changing CoG. Basically, it can be extracted the energy of affected system without consuming pendullum energy.
Gravity is a conservative force, it cannot be extracted energy from it , but yet , can assist to create mecanical work.
Think of our solar system or entire universe, it is all driven by gravity but there is no gravity consumed (except on colapsing/expanding stars....) or transformed in energy.

[KAS]

Thanks Fletch. Interesting experiment that right in my area of current research.

Another example of the Normal Force I am trying to extract without mass height loss ( if you can get your head around it) is as follows:

If you balance an inverted pendulum on your hand (weight upwards), and let it fall out of balance slightly. Now to keep the mass at this Oob height, you will need to move your hand in the direction of the tilt. Kinetic energy is being generated here equal to the energy you put in by moving in the direction of the tilt preventing the mass from losing height. No gain there then. But wait,
What if one could utilise a ramp and gravity ( instead of your hand) to chase the out of balance weight without it losing height. If this were possible, wouldn't that constitute transferring Normal Force into kinetic energy?

I ask here because I think I have found a way to achieve this.

[ME]

Chasing an inverted pendulum with your hand requires energy.

To catch a falling pendulum the easiest way is to lower your hand faster than the pendulum falls.
When you keep your hand perfectly level, then you hand needs to accelerate towards the falling side. The normal force of the hand will be divided by a force towards the weight (to counter act the falling of the weight), and a force at 90° (to counter act rotation).

Replacing the hand with a cart or a wheel will result in the pendulum providing the opposite force as mentioned. It will fall faster compared to a pendulum balancing on solid ground.

..As far as I understand of course.

I ask here because I think I have found a way to achieve this.

Looking forward.

[Fletcher]

But wait,

What if one could utilise a ramp and gravity (instead of your hand) to chase the out of balance weight without it losing height. If this were possible, wouldn't that constitute transferring Normal Force into kinetic energy?

I ask here because I think I have found a way to achieve this.

I look forward to your thoughts too KAS. That will be interesting.

All my own findings suggest that for any Work to be done a mass MUST lose HEIGHT. i.e. no gradient or potential.

Indeed, for any OOB movement to occur in a wheel scenario some mass, somewhere or another internally, must lose height and GPE - and then it must be restored/replenished.

But then you also know these things well, which intrigues me further.

..........

ETA: was thinking about Newtons formula for gravity force after reading your initial posts in this thread. Where you said we generally forget about the mass of the earth and the fact that the earth must move (infinitesimally) towards a falling mass.

And how we just use the original separation distance to calculate GPE and this KE which equates to capacity to do Work which is force x distance.

Yeah, we approximate the closing distance to the original separation distance when in fact it is less. I think we do that because it makes no material difference.

That is, the earth will move a small distance towards the other mass - it will have inertia, so when the two masses collide the inertia of the earth will continue to push upwards presumably. The net result would be a sort of bat hitting a ball and the KE would be the same as the GPE predicated on the original separation distance.

Just some rambling thoughts.

[WaltzCee]

Now to keep the mass at this Oob height, you will need to move your hand in the direction of the tilt.

Not just move, but shoot your hand out like an arrow!

[KAS]

That is, the earth will move a small distance towards the other mass - it will have inertia, so when the two masses collide the inertia of the earth will continue to push upwards presumably.

Exactly Fletch. Only I do not believe this atraction force to be Nf.

With Normal force, it can be manipulate. I gave an example of a weight on a ramp. Gf on the rolling mass is uni directional (toward the centre of the earth) but Nf acts perpendicular to the ramp angle. Also, we don't even need gravity to produce Nf. If I hold a block of wood against a wall utilising 1kg of pressure, then the wall also pushes on the wood to the same value. It's as if this Nf appears from nowhere.

I found some of my old drawings from an idea I had in 2006 which I think I inadvertently captured Nf and converted it to Ke utilising a ramp but without the mass losing height. I'll dig them out and post them tomorrow.

[Fletcher]

Look forward to it KAS.

AFAIK you always need some sort of gradient (loss of potential) to get movement, even from Nf ?!

Anyways, a good thought provoking idea makes for an interesting thread.

And if you are right in your thinking, it would open a door previously considered closed.