Gravity assisted Normal Energy

[Fletcher]

Good one Fletcher, I see you used a polygon - I was less adventurous :-)

I had to think about that a while ME. I decided to make the outer radius circle first (0.5m radius) - then I attached a second circle (r=0.48m). They were orientated to bdc. Then I moved the circles by adjusting one's 'angle' in 2 degree increments - at the same time I used the circle 'point element' to attach points on the vertical radials - they snap to the required positions automatically. Then I used the polygon tool to join them all up etc etc. Then I copied it into the sim.

It seemed to work fine - the background circle rolls on the ramp.

[Fletcher]

Well, I'm certainly not giving up on this yet purely for the two reasons I mention earlier.
I'm not in denial or anything. If it doesn't work, it doesn't work, but my mistrust of sim systems together with a nagging feeling that there is something new here is spurning me on.

You can never be sure that sim software will ever give you results beyond the boundaries of known physics. There's two reasons why; it could be that no one has ever managed to to archive it. Or it could be that there is underlying program code that will not allow results beyond newtonion physics by reverting to best guess when confronted by non conforming data. A sort of run home to mama function.
It is also worth noting that certain scenarios simply cannot be simulated. I gave an example with the arc friction. Simply entering a value to prevent it from sliding on the ramp doesn't reflect reality and could possibly throw all the data out.

Nevertheless, I am greatful to the sim masters here and others for their help and I will certainly let you all know if something new comes out of my continued physical research.

Not finished with this yet! Watch this space.

Totally agree with you KAS .. that's the beauty of real world builds being compared to sim world - sim world shouldn't predict an aberration or anomalous result (I would think - but I haven't been able to find out over the years whether it is top down or bottom up programing i.e. CoE over-ride).

As mickegg did, a video can be shown and analysed (frame by frame and frame rate). If you know the variables (such as radii, slope, masses etc) you can then predict a result for KE (the sim or by spreadsheet) and compare it to the actual observations from the analysis of the video.

One day someone will see that discrepancy.

FYI, jim_mich couldn't get an anomalous result with WM to prove his idea, so he built his own visual basic program, which he believes does show the aberration. But no physical real world build proof yet.

[ME]

Well, I'm certainly not giving up on this yet...
I'm not in denial or anything. If it doesn't work, it doesn't work, but my mistrust of sim systems together with a nagging feeling that there is something new here is spurning me on.

Good!
My contributions are never meant as a form of discouragement, even though it could seem that way.

As Fletcher mentioned, a sim is a cross-check.
When done right and when paying attention to the right things then its math should give a similar result as when it would be done by hand; only a lot faster.
Even when done by hand it can't beat reality with all kinds of frictions, oscillating materials, and other variations.
Just see it as a base-line which could be useful, and you'll have an idea of why and where it deviates from normal physics: Optimization starts with math, tweaking is done by hand.
And it's not the simulator who spontaneously produces a new concept or mechanism.

Not finished with this yet! Watch this space.

I'll watch.

[mickegg]

KAS and to All

My apologies if I gave you the impression that I am casting doubts on the enterprise.
You may have misunderstood my "pursuit" remark.

Actually I have spent many more hours working towards the straight line model.

I was questioning whether this was still needed or if the sims have made my effort on this particular part of the aspect surplus to requirements.

I have the more difficult task of making the cam profile roller next......so was just checking if anyone other than me was interested, before I continued with it.

Regards

Mick

[KAS]

Glad I haven't lost your help Mick.

I am in the process of constructing a 360 deg jig for the testing of all types of profile rockers ( cams) and I am also cutting metal for the parallelogram addition. Have had chance to look at my other rocker arcs of varying sizes and materials that was all packed up following a house move a couple of years ago. I have found some 114mm diam thin wall aluminium tube that I was given but never got chance to utilise. It is only 1.5mm thick and feels extremely light. I'll probably start with this to make the modified version I sketched earlier.

I also found one of my old (complete) strap only sub systems and had a little play with it. Forgot how quickly it started to roll and the accelerated without the ramp. Again visually, it looks as though it loses very little height (if any) too.
Consequently, I am more convinced than ever that the sims are missing something important. Just don't know what it is yet.

I don't intend to hide anything, and if there is something in this, I intend to get it out there as quickly as possible. I would hate to go through a patent application only to have it blocked by governments who are more interested in the loss of oil tax revenue. Bear with me on this.

[Fletcher]

I also found one of my old (complete) strap only sub systems and had a little play with it. Forgot how quickly it started to roll and the accelerated without the ramp. Again visually, it looks as though it loses very little height (if any) too.

Consequently, I am more convinced than ever that the sims are missing something important. Just don't know what it is yet.

I am encouraged (as I was before) that you feel the sims have missed something. As I said they are a cross-check against reality, and they conform to known physics and symmetries. They are quite good for working out interactions and movements of parts etc. Usually for lever type arrangements.

Can I suggest that when you have a new device to observe that in order to remove some confirmation bias potential that you video it in action and set up a scale grid close by in the background. From that and the known frame rate you can actually calculate the velocities etc and the GPE loss etc.

[KAS]

That's what I intend on doing Fletch.

I have already cut some 114mm diameter extremely light aluminium tube 1.5mm wall into 2 arcs.
I am constructing a 360 deg rotatable jig on a plain background with a laser level plimsole line accross the weight centre start point for reference. I will then mark the end of the weight with a black and yellow datum cross, and then video the moment and also the reset moment for all to observe in slow motion.

I am also constructing an arc with the parrallelagram attachment as per my sketch and film that on the same jig. I think I'll omit the ramp and plump for straps under tension as I believe it gives better results.

This may take a little time so hang in there.

I will provide all relevant data (weight /arc weight values etc) at the time.

Kas

[Fletcher]

Thanks KAS .. that's sounds good.

Have no fear, I like everyone else is rooting for you. I actually want WM2D to be wrong.

What using WM does do is teach you to look for the simple relationships, and that's things like conservative gravity doctrine - you know, that mgh = 1/2mv^2 for ANY vertical height irrespective of path taken.

Or, that velocity at any height can be calculated as v = sqrt(2gh) by rearranging those two formulas.

Best of luck.

[agor95]

@KAS

Thanks for the drawing and the civil set of posts that followed.

[mickegg]

Hi KAS,ME,Fletcher

I persevered with the spiral cam roller I wanted to try.

It proved more difficult to make than I originally thought but I managed to get a profile that followed my template with reasonable accuracy.
I needed to put a support bar to position the weight at the spiral origin position and to stop the cam from flexing too much.

Much the same setup as the semi-circular one.

Set it up to a 20 degree ramp angle as used for my spiral profile drawing and, allowing for the inaccuracies of my construction, the weight appears to follow a straight line path ok.

A couple of short vids:

https://youtu.be/fp9mmmK5egg

https://youtu.be/YYe52_efntg

Definitely not as lively as the first.....presumably because there is no weight drop?

Anyway...quite enjoyable to do.

Regards

Mick

[KAS]

Nice one Mick.

Looks like it's just balancing on a the ramp at that angle. Out of curiosity, what would happen to the weight if you start with the ramp level, then slowly lowered to the angle where it moves. Does it mantain it's height throughout the ramp lowering procedure, and is there any linear movement again whilst the ramp is being lowered?

Thanks for your interest.

Kas

[mickegg]

Hi KAS

With the ramp level the weight and roller take up a position nearer to the end as it does with the semi-circle version.

As the ramp is raised the cam rolls to the new position.
For lower ramp angles than 20 the weight is going uphill.
At 20 it is horizontal path and above 20 degrees it starts to
go downhill....but the system does not "run away".

The cam is a little heavier than the previous one so i think I might need to add some more weight mass?
Also I assume the cam balance is changing more now than the circular
arc did, which is probably cancelling the falling weight when going above
20 degrees.

I'd better do another vid so you can see.....don't know why I didn't do
it while it was set up ......Doh!

By the way, I tried setting the video up as Fletcher suggested but gave up as I found the camera position gave so much parallax against the
backboard it was useless for measuring anything.

These vids were taken across the room at maximum zoom to try and minimize the said parallax.......mind you, it is only a small camera!

Regards

Mick

[mickegg]

Here you are KAS.

Just noticed when viewing the video that the weight has bent the
support bar when hitting the book! So it is a little out of position.

https://youtu.be/Y9lrHwB2MIQ

https://youtu.be/ERAM7lVcSIo

Regards

Mick

[KAS]

Thanks mick.

Looks like the shaped cam may be a dead end then.
I'll carry on with my standard arc jig and play around with the offset weight position. Maybe ME was right and the arc is the most efficient shape. Just need to test some add ons to the arc though in the hope of an improvement in performance.

Thanks for yo help with this

Will post soon.

[Art]

Nice work guys !

Could I suggest that you could locate the centre of gravity (COM) of the device by glueing a small sheet of paper on both sides of it and piercing it with a needle at different points until you find that it balances perfectly .

Watching the positioning of this point during the action would probably be informative .

Thanks for sharing . Excellent !