Flippin' Flywheels

[AB Hammer]

MrVibrating

I am going to have to reread your whole string to get properly caught up with it. I have been sidetracked from my work and a problem. Friday I am getting my right knee operated on and I will have a bit of time to catch up and see if there is anymore that I like the direction you are going. It is a bit different from mine.

Good work.

[WaltzCee]

May my client be with you as that butcher hacks on your knee, in the name of his boy.

Amen.

[MrVibrating]

MrVibrating

I am going to have to reread your whole string to get properly caught up with it. I have been sidetracked from my work and a problem. Friday I am getting my right knee operated on and I will have a bit of time to catch up and see if there is anymore that I like the direction you are going. It is a bit different from mine.

Good work.

Cheers mate and best of luck with it.. although you'll prolly find old copies of TV Times more interesting.. i have nothing - nada - and not even any pretence at a consistent thread theme any more.. All i have for now is the prospect of variable momentum as the potentially useful property of a system of rising and falling weights.

Ice-skater-effect inertial interactions are momentum-invariant, whereas gravitational interactions have variable momentum. Utterly trivial and seemingly useless - of course a weight's momentum is increasing as it falls, and of course it is decreasing as it swings back upwards. Big whoop. All i have is the blind hope that this variablility might open the door to some kind of momentum asymmetry, if i (or anyone else) can think of some useful way of applying it.

Most likely i won't, and this'll fall by the wayside to be replaced with some other hair-brained half-concept..

[MrVibrating]

I now see one way this new way of thinking might tie in with previous findings - recalling that a given amount of energy could relate to an abritrary range of momentum, and likewise, that a given amount of momentum could relate to an arbitrary range of energy, suppose we have a gravitational interaction that is perfectly energy-symmetrical - equal energy in as out - yet having asymmetric distributions of momentums manifesting those I/O energies?

So for example 1 Joule of energy might correspond to 1.414 kg-m/s of momentum for a 1 kg mass, or, equally, 4.472 kg-m/s for a 10 kg mass.

you can see where i'm going.. energy in = energy out, but what of momentum - must it be symmetrical? What if we could somehow change its terms between inputting our Joule, and getting it back out again?

Something like this could tick a good few boxes for theoretical consistency - crudely, if we could generate 4 units of momentum by dropping a mass, while only needing to spend one unit of momentum to relift it, we'd have an excess of 3 units of momentum, despite energy unity with respect to the gravitational interaction...

..of course this excess of momentum also has its own energy, which we'd have gained, yet although it depended upon a gravitational interaction, that is not itself the source of the gain - the form of which is simply the KE of the excess momentum.

Possible or not, it should be fun working out how and why...

[John doe]

Thank you for posting this

[MrVibrating]

Thinking this through, for anyone that cares to follow along..

When we pull an orbiting mass inwards, we're raising the energy of a conserved momentum - the input work against centrifugal force, multiplied by the change in radius, is equal to the output rise in rotational kinetic energy.

It's an exquisitely efficient means of applying torque, but that is by-the-by, for now...

What's interesting about it, is the point i noticed a few weeks back - that even if we could pull that mass inwards for free, somehow, while still obtaining the usual rise in RKE, tapping off this apparent gain would also mean tapping off much of our conserved system momentum - remember, we've only raised its energy, not actually adding any more momentum.

So basically, if we had say, one, conserved unit of angular momentum, and we raise its energy value by 100%.. when we come to cream off that nice free gain, we'll also be removing 50% of our conserved system momentum. We've had our cake.. but can't take a bite without sacrificing half our conserved momentum. This is evidently not sustainable across multiple closed cycles, and so pretty much precludes any point of searching for some way to cheat against CF as a potential solution.

But as one door creaks shut, perhaps it opens another..

My thinking goes like this:

- when we bounce a perfectly elastic ball, on its rebound back up, it is scrubbing off all the KE and momentum it gained on the way down

- if however its energy was raised on the way back up by lowering its inertia, thus invoking CoM to accelerate its velocity to compensate that reduction in inertia, then we'd've raised its KE without changing its net momentum

- for instance, we could halve the inertia and double the kinetic energy

- it's not a free energy gain - we've paid for all of it, by performing work against CF - however now, all of the system's input energy resides in the form of KE

- hence, if we doubled the KE, when we come to remove the portion we've added, by converting it back to GPE (ie. raising a weight).. we still have half of our momentum left..!

So the point would be, that we can recoup all of our input energy - for a zero-sum deal - but without cancelling out all the momentum we gained on the way down.


So a cycle looks something like this:

- drop a mass with a widening MoI

- retract the MoI, inputting work against CF, as it's relifted

- when it's relifted, we have all the energy back out that we put in, plus a surfeit of angular momentum (maybe 50% or more)

Energy in = energy out, but momentum down > momentum back up...

[AB Hammer]

MrVibrating

Here in my video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ny7O7bAn2uU

at point 1.25 the slip slide wheel. I also added springs in the next version similar to the spring mounts you have been showing.

The use of ratcheting requires a ratcheted flywheel or a solid mounted axle to spin on. Ratcheting best works off a more solid base to be of use.

I'm drawing a few variables for later when I finish them.

[MrVibrating]

Cheers mate, ingenious designs... although i don't have any mechanism or principle to even test yet...

Still chewing over this crazy idea of trying to apply CoE to break CoM, rather than the other way around (the thing i was trying to do when starting this thread).

No idea how it might be tried yet, or if it's even physically possible.. but it'd solve a few paradoxes. Equal GPE up vs down, but unequal momentum up vs down.. i'll need to work through the maths of a generalised interaction to see if it even adds up, then if so, try to work out a mechanism that can accomplish it...

[thx4]

Hello everyone,
I do not know the English language at all, please excuse me for that ...

I am attentively analyzing MrVibrating ... I think the best research idea is in this direction, the most logical way is not ....

le lien : https://youtu.be/_GJujClGYJQ?t=5m36s

[WaltzCee]

Increasing energy's power is a fool's errand on a roller coaster ride.

[Dwylbtzle]

yes, monsieur V
and over unity wheel or whatever you call it
like this (is sorta what i was talking about):

if you follow the rolling balls, the line you see indicates that it should work
but it doesn't

*******************************************************
same idea here, but this one should work turning it the other direction
i mean clearly it should
but it doesn't
somewhere in there all those little balls will adjust and find a place where they all add up to their equilibrium
my contention is that all ever increasingly complicated versions of the flibertigibbit widget flipper are also doomed to failure because they rely on the same principle these don't work by:
that one can fight gravity to use it or use it to fight it


i do believe a gravity engine can be made
but you better (in essence) lay that wheel onto its side
so you now have a vertical axis
and you just send the gravity thru once-
-and use it that way, if you must
then just get more gravity somehow
it is not hard

[MrVibrating]

Hello everyone,
I do not know the English language at all, please excuse me for that ...

I am attentively analyzing MrVibrating ... I think the best research idea is in this direction, the most logical way is not ....

le lien : https://youtu.be/_GJujClGYJQ?t=5m36s

Cheers mate.


The video touches on a cool concept everyone should be familiar with, the 'brachistochrone trajectory' - we know from Noether's theorem that time is the variable that must be applied to break symmetry.

Time, and all its dependencies... such as speed... and momentum. Such as the momentum (m * V) of a given GPE...

I still haven't got round to any maths yet, maybe this weekend.. i fully expect to find that i'm talking complete horseshit, but we'll see..

[MrVibrating]

@Dwylbtzle

If your point is that gravity wheels are impossible, then i think most of us here are in complete agreement.

If your point was an attempt at a critique of my wheel-concept, i'm afraid i do not have one, and am not even close to trying to design one.

This thread was initially about trying to apply CoM to break CoE, by trying to freely vary MoI, thus causing V to change in compensation (because of CoM), and while the m/V ratio is covariant and linear, the ratio of change in velocity to KE evolves via the half-squared route. Hence, if we could cause MoI to passively reduce by a factor of two, our KE would spontaneously double.

I then realised that even if such an exploit were possible, it wouldn't be able to explain the performance of Bessler's wheel - at least, not without invoking yet another, unknown, symmetry break, able to generate free momentum.

But while i got off on the wrong foot, that's kinda the whole point - to be able to eliminate whole classes of potential exploits; which requires being able to conclusively generalise them.

So, just as we can say with some confidence that a closed loop through a static field yields zero net energy, thus precluding gravity wheels (since mass and gravity are not time-variant), we can also be similarly certain that Bessler was not cheating centrifugal force, and that such schemes are just as fruitless as gravity wheels / 'perpetual overbalance'.

However, in the course of eliminating what remains, the question now before me is whether, instead, CoE might be applied, to thwart CoM; the inverse of my original enquiry.

This is not obvious, and kind of unintuitive, so i'll try to elaborate it as clearly as possible:

- when we drop a mass, that GPE converts to KE and thus also momentum - its mass multiplied by its velocity. We cannot change the value of mass, so we cannot alter the momentum value of a GPE this way.

- but that falling mass could also be causing an angular motion - a rotating mass - wherein MoI supercedes rest mass

- and MoI is variable...

..so, the proposition now is that if we raise the energy value of a given output GPE's momentum, such as by retracting an MoI, and hence not raising its momentum... when we then extract that input energy by converting it to GPE, we have a remainder of momentum.

In essence i'm wondering if it might be possible to 'decouple' angular momentum from RKE and/or GPE. The key would be that we can vary KE without varying momentum, via MoI variation, while gravitational interactions vary both momentum and energy. So i'm wondering if this might provide us the right blend of parameters and dimensions to cause an effective angular momentum asymmetry.

I haven't actually tried solving this empirically yet, but will get round to it soon... and it probably won't work out the way i'm hoping. I'm almost certainly missing something daft. But i'll eventually identify it, hopefully learn something, and move on to whatever's left..

[MrVibrating]

Increasing energy's power is a fool's errand on a roller coaster ride.

Obviously GPE is not time-dependent (and thus not speed dependent) because mass and gravity are invariant and mediated at lightspeed.

And power ratios alone are fully contingent upon CoE, posing no challenge to it.


But speed is a key component of momentum and KE - especially with regards to a time-variable inertia.

That's why i think the Brachistochrone curve is interesting. Though perhaps not in itself particularly useful, anything at all involving time-dependent changes in momentum and energy is at least considering the right kinds of variables.

It goes without saying that the rising and falling weights in any working wheel are, by definition, subject to differing energy terms. So any means of manipulating those terms is 'getting warmer'..

Fundamentally, work / energy is force integrated over some displacement / distance. If our weights must travel in closed loops then they must travel equal distance up as down, hence our target variable must be a time-variant or time-dependent component of force.

Gravity is invariant / static. Likewise, mass. But 'angular mass' - rotary inertia - is variable. And this does have a direct, causal effect upon velocity, and thus momentum, and energy, each by independent yet inter-dependent terms. So by basic elimination - unless anyone can think of any other time-variant energy components - this must be one of our key variables...

So yes, generally, PE is not speed or time-dependent, and such misconceptions are usually naive.

But over-looking the fact that time-variant energy components are the only mathematically-possible means of solution would be chucking the baby out with the bathwater...

We're confined to a closed-loop trajectory, therefore time-variant force components and dependencies are our only friends.. and the de facto keys to a solution.

[thx4]

Texte original Français….
Bonjour à tous,

Ce n'est qu'une ébauche de réflexion, mais je suis optimiste, depuis un certain temps je me pose la question du balancier sur la roue de Bessler. Actuellement je travaille sur une horloge en bois avec une petite CNC (purement éducatif et décoratif lol).

Aucune chance de voir tourner une roue en basculant des poids avec la gravité, mais..

Prototype possible:
Si on considère que la bille (ou poids) doit emprunter la voie du demi-cercle, il faudrait sur un disque en rotation que celui-ci soit fixe, au moins pendant une période infinitésimale, de façon à ce que la bille donne le maximum d'impact ...
C'est le pourquoi du balancier de Bessler (selon moi) qui pendant une période courte bloque le disque, pendant la descente de la bille...ensuite l'impact et de nouveau un cycle etc. , à voir pour la synchronisation, mais c'est dans cet esprit que j'envisage un prototype.
Pendant la descente de la bille, le disque est fixe.
Texte traduit …. lol

Hello everyone,
It is only a draft of reflection, but I am optimistic. For some time I asked myself the question of the pendulum on the wheel of Bessler. Currently I am working on a wooden clock with a small CNC (purely educational and decorative lol).
No chance of making a wheel turn by rotating weights with gravity,but…
Possible prototype:
If we consider that the ball (or weight) must go through the semicircle, it would be necessary that the rotating disk is not moving, at least for a small period, so that the ball gives the maximum impact ... This is why the Bessler pendulum (according to me) blocks the disk during a short period while the ball is going down ... then the impact and again a cycle etc. , To see for the synchronization, but it is in this spirit that I consider a prototype.
While the ball is going down, the disc must not move.

A++