momentum ,speed ,ratios, spin,arc length's = carryover ?

[johannesbender]

what is your thoughts on this simple idea i had..

[pequaide]

Yes: the concept will work.

[johannesbender]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lever

out of context quote from wikipedia about the law of levers , which has a part in this in theory except for speed and momentum and spin which i picked up from helicopter rotor blades and flywheels and tops etc :

The lever is a movable bar that pivots on a fulcrum attached to a fixed point. The lever operates by applying forces at different distances from the fulcrum, or a pivot. Assuming the lever does not dissipate or store energy, the power into the lever must equal the power out of the lever. As the lever rotates around the fulcrum, points farther from this pivot move faster than points closer to the pivot. Therefore, a force applied to a point farther from the pivot must be less than the force located at a point closer in, because power is the product of force and velocity. [3] If a and b are distances from the fulcrum to points A and B and the force FA applied to A is the input and the force F B applied at B is the output, the ratio of the velocities of points A and B is given by a/b , so we have the ratio of the output force to the input force, or mechanical advantage, is given by This is the law of the lever, which was proven by Archimedes using geometric reasoning. [4] It shows that if the distance a from the fulcrum to where the input force is applied (point A ) is greater than the distance b from fulcrum to where the output force is applied (point B ), then the lever amplifies the input force. On the other hand, if the distance a from the fulcrum to the input force is less than the distance b from the fulcrum to the output force, then the lever reduces the input force.

i was thinking it could apply in this sense but not much of a knowledgable guy on physics .

[pequaide]

This looks like an excellent way (the first post) to produce and store momentum. Your advantage is that (if) you realize you are storing momentum; not energy. You may however need to transfer this momentum to a smaller object. And of course you have to use the correct form of momentum. But anyway it is an interesting idea.

[johannesbender]

apart from trying to use two sources of rotational momentum (dont know if you call it such ) , the one being the flywheel and gears , the other being the swinging ,i thought this will work also like a leverage device that helps with lifting itself by using both the input momentum and speed as its own source on the oppisite side when it runs on the shorter distance and help carry over momentum or energy or force (i dont know what to call it) cannot really put my thoughts in words so i hope the picture explains more about the other "lever" factor i think should work ?

[ME]

... not much of a knowledgeable guy on physics ...

yep, it can be tricky sometimes: perhaps the following attachment gets you started?

to edit: Momentum p in units Newton seconds [Ns]

[MrVibrating]

what is your thoughts on this simple idea i had..

Brilliant thinking mate, i've considered similar schemes, but not found anything interesting yet.

The angle i like however is the possibility of controlling the M : V distribution of a given momentum P.

If we can just find some way to passively trade inertia for velocity, we can charge up a momentum to higher-energy values.

We know he was switching masses moving between alternating radii, so in essence, he was doing something like this. If the weights come in pairs and swap inner / outer positions while orbiting then there are inertial torques being applied by these conserved momentums changing radius..


This IS the right ballpark. Somewhere aound here there's an asymmetry. In terms of the fundamental physics, this is the only place to begin looking - the only potential arena for an asymmetrical time-variant interaction. We know gravity and mass are constant, so can't provide that variability. That leaves the realm of mechanical forces and inertial interactions, where we DO have time-variance, and a ready-made divergence in how momentum and energy scale (linearly vs exponentially).

We're beginning to pick the right toys out of the toy box.. Just a matter of mashing 'em together imaginatively enough..

[johannesbender]

What i see a lot is that most concepts , actively exchanges falling for lifting , and as soon as keeling is reached there is no more to exchange because the ride is over at that point , so my thought along with this has been to not actively fight gravity but just coast along and gather on the side which comes "free" , then release on the fight side .

i see no point in actively exchanging something that is supposed to be reserved until the fight requires it as much as i naively did in the past , the switching for mass from the outer to the inner is such a perplexing concept that i thought if i cannot shift mass freely then atleast i can try shift force or application (or whatever) , however having the larger mass to the outer may be detremental on the other side given the application of leverage ,and moving it staticly inward instead also provides a problem on the outer , hence a sort off vice versa tradeoff predicament .

regards.

[MrVibrating]

As Marcello's shown the interaction's symmetrical between left / right side and input / output integrals.

Where i think it shows a great deal of promise is in varying the transmission radius of a given angular momentum - basically, applying varying power ratios to momentums. This is the kind of thing we need to be looking at to create energy by trading angular inertia for velocity.

So although this particular example's a coaster, there is some variation on this - some trick we can apply, a certain trade of angular inertias at changing radii, or something along these lines, that solves the case. It has to be here, somewhere, lord knows it can't be anywhere else..

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

Hi Mr V,

the sliding of a weighted crossbar should do the trick, moving the weight out on the descending side to gain a out of balance, then the weight on the ascending side has been moved closer to the axle so should accelerate the wheel as well, it should be a double whammy but its not. I think the angular momentum game does not want to play ball when it is on a vertical wheel.

Looking back the only experiments I have seen to show the angular momentum game, was on the horizontal or in near zero gravity, if you know of any angular momentum experiments on the vertical to a gravity, that can show the wheel acceleration I would be very interested to see them. I am sure the effect is still trying to happen, but gravity is putting the brakes on it so to speak, because there is always a lift against gravity to pay for.

[johannesbender]

so to increase velocity we have to do something along these lines as i tried to depict here ?