Flippin' Flywheels

[agor95]

@eccentrically1

Your reference to the time term. This got me thinking; positively.

We know a mass moving vertically, at a set speed, will stop at a set time.
We know vertical and horizontal motion are independent of each other.

We also know to accelerate a mass horizontally requires a force and energy.

If we had some stored energy to move a mass horizontally while it is moving up vertically then that would be good news.

The mass could have a lever following underneath; which has a mass on the other side of a pivot. Say 1 quarter from the pivot mass 4 pounds.

The mass moving is 4 pounds and is moving up. :-)

The more this mass moves towards the pivot the better.

This means the leverage on the lever below it is reduces as it moves towards the pivot.

The 1 quarter from the pivot mass 4 pounds, on the other side, will increase in distance as it drops.

That is because the mass is in effect on an incline plane most of the time.

[cloud camper]

We know vertical and horizontal motion are independent of each other.

Agor you have already answered your own question.

The formula for determining GPE is mgh. Mass x gravity x height.
Do you see any reference to horizontal movement here?

So there is no point in sliding weights up inclined planes or
using levers and pivots to move things around.

All you're achieving is doing 1/1 conversions of potential
energy to kinetic then back again in a static time invariant
gravitational field.

These are all known conservative simple machines.

If you connect the output of one simple machine to the input
of another simple machine all you're getting is a series of conservative conversions minus friction.

You really need to get a simulator!

[eccentrically1]

We've established that ersatz is a synonym for artificial

No we did not.

It is in the link you provided.

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/ersatz

Click on synonyms. The first one is artificial.

• ersatz
  adjective UK ​ /ˈeə.zæts/ US ​ /ˈer.zɑːts/ disapproving
  
  - (of a product) made or used as a substitute, typically an inferior one, for something else
  - used instead of something else, usually because the other thing is too expensive or rare
  -Not real or genuine
  
  https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/ersatz
  http://dictionary.cambridge.org/diction ... ish/ersatz

.. and Frank won't back off.

That doesn't make it any more true or valuable.
According to one pattern his probable motives are likely: 'legacy' reasons.

Who cares why he does it? It's a synonym he likes, and it isn't that hard to understand!

Who cares if he insists on using ersatz or AG for CF, or 3rd derivative energy for jerk force?

At least I do. And I think we all should. It is called verification.
We need to know what it is before we can apply the math, or verify a mechanism... for now it's a meaningless statement.
So why, why, why use something when what it probable represents* already exists...
*) that's why I keep asking.... I care. Because there's no direct answer I just assume Grimer doesn't care himself, or doesn't know.

I was the one who tried to make a comparison with Artificial Gravity, or Centrifugal.... but that's still not confirmed, perhaps I'm wrong?
In case I'm right: why change...? pride?

This talk is Not for My sake, Not for the sake of a small Splinter-group, but for All our sakes....
We are on a discussion-board, right?
I thought the objective with PMM-research was to circumvent certain limits and not to complicate the SH*T out of it, which is totally unnecessary.

And then let's say one found motion. Any theoretical attempt based on this nonsense can't get past the local doorknob. What math is involved, what definition does it have, where does it apply.... never answered... So it needs to be rewritten before someone understands...
My main question: Why bother deviating in the first place?

And the latest attempt for "3rd derivative energy" are three different things... (jerk for example is a change in acceleration: not specific for rotational stuff)

The math involved is the same math for centripetal and centrifugal force.

We know, I hope by now, what he means.

What part of "never explained, zero references" shows any form of understanding?

Please find us all some reference for this question where it is fully explained:

• ME wrote:
  I just like to see a mathematically explanation of how this 3rd derivative (which is a mathematical term) is supposed to be so beneficial in a rotating environment.

Here's mine: http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewt ... 738#149738

I don't see in your explanation of the benefits of jerk in a rotating environment.

It's not worth arguing.

Yes it is, because we should simply use the math and tools available when they are sufficient, available for everyone, not confusing, with all kinds of ways one is able to find and learn about the information.
But actually I agree: this whole discussion should have been totally unnecessary.

By all means, let's end it now, and accept Frank's quirks.

• To emphasize
  Please don't believe me:
  @ALL: Try comparing the results of an online search for the following keywords:
  + Centripetal force
  + Artificial gravity
  + Ersatz

Most important, it won't change the math.

What math ???

The math for centripetal force. Words don't change physical processes. It does help to use the conventional terms to avoid confusion, but when I see people here saying there is an "energy gain" for some process, that's a similar misconception. That's just one example, there are many more.

[agor95]

@cloud camper

I smile with your reply.

The horizontal movement changes the leverage.

The Potential and Kinetic are conservative.

Agreed.

P.S. My simulator is at home and I am not.
So I used word for now.

Regards

[cloud camper]

The horizontal movement changes the leverage

Yes but the further we slide a weight sideways on a wheel reduces
the time available to apply it.

A weight can only convert GPE to RKE of the wheel while it is lowering its COM (dropping). If the weight is traveling sideways it is not dropping therefore not converting anything.

Therefore, the further we slide a weight sideways to try and achieve more torque the further we reduce the wheel angle and time available over which the increased torque can be applied.

The end result is a wash with no gain.

We have just described the famous width for height problem.

[ME]

And the latest attempt for "3rd derivative energy" are three different things... (jerk for example is a change in acceleration: not specific for rotational stuff)
The math involved is the same math for centripetal and centrifugal force.

The same, are you really sure?

Jerk: m/s³
Centrifugal Force: kg m/s²

Hence: What math ?
Repeat: What should "3rd derivative energy" be, and how does it work in a rotating environment?

ME: Here's mine: http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewt ... 738#149738
ECC1: I don't see in your explanation of the benefits of jerk in a rotating environment.

1. As said: Because there are no benefits from "jerk" !
2. As said: Jerk is not specific for rotation alone, just like velocity and acceleration...
3. That link addresses some other nonsense word and abbreviation.

And when there should happen to be some benefits then you could just explain that stuff with the math available, because as you say:

The math for centripetal force. Words don't change physical processes.
It does help to use the conventional terms to avoid confusion, but when I see people here saying there is an "energy gain" for some process, that's a similar misconception.

:-) Exactly, and that's why we don;t need to change that word !
Now you finally understand, thanks!
So all this for all those years of just talk-talk-talk, without any clarification, references, backed up by formulas or one sliver of any kind of explanation and just more talk-talk-talk for defending the imagination of some grimer who's hijacking and confusing well accepted and well worked out terminology...
Perpetual Motion Research is already vulnerable for these kinds of vagueness, conspiracies and confusions... this is how it starts.
That's why this idiocy has to stop, or proof it otherwise (as requested many times)... so until that time:

I say, you say (I'm glad you did), and science says and agrees:

• Angular Momentum: L = I·ω = r·m·v
• Centripetal Force: F = m·v² /r = m·r·ω²
• Moment of Inertia: MoI[point] = m·r² (a list of MoI)
• Rotational Kinetic Energy: E[RK]= ½ I·ω²

And these links are for all to find, to access, to teach, learn and use: that's what matters, and that's why it matters !

[agor95]

@cloud camper

Here is a nice simulation I am working on.

A simple pendulum showing KE + PE conservation.

[agor95]

@cloud camper

The post is really a simple linear conversation.

So as we are talking wheels; What is the linear speed of a weight held at 6 feet of a wheel rotating at 54 rotations per minute?

yes I can do the calculations.

Now use that as the vertical velocity.

1. How long does it take to get to it's maximum height?
2. Also what is that height?

The time shows how much we have to play with.
The height shows it travels above the pivot point i.e. the axle.

[agor95]

@ME

Naturally the links are interesting and a must read.

The Moment of inertia of a bar is interesting.

a balanced bar is 1/12ml**2
bar rotating around one end 1/3ml**2

where l is length.

Thanks

[eccentrically1]

Repeat: What should "3rd derivative energy" be, and how does it work in a rotating environment?

Frank likes to call jerk "3rd derivative energy", rather than 3rd derivative of position. I don't know why he insists on calling it energy, i think I asked him once and he said we have to approach PM from a different perspective or words to that effect.

The way I understand jerk whether in rotating or non rotating environment is it's the rate of change of acceleration, so if some object is accelerated quickly enough, either from a standstill or from a constant velocity or even from a gentle acceleration, the object experiences that change as a sudden jerk, so the name for it is appropriate.

I'm not sure why you don't understand how it works in a rotating environment. I know it's not specific to rotation, things can be jerked in a linear way.

But all of this talk talk talk is ignoring why PM is considered impossible, no matter what equations we throw at it. PM research is pseudoscience. Or would that be ersatz science? :D

[ME]

Agor, I see that link to MoI is actually wrong, I'll make the correction.

Outstanding post ME. I truly think Frank uses these terms to try to sound smarter than the rest of us. I generally just skip over his posts and on to the next ones.

No. I use them because I am smarter. ;-)

justsomeone (& others), thanks for the feedback...

Grimer, you very well may be: good for you.

[Furcurequs]

I'm sort of with ME on this.

Imagine you were on a rotating space station and got out of bed and while still half asleep you dropped your toothbrush:

"Hey! Why did my toothbrush not fall straight down?"

"Well, space cadet, you're not on earth anymore, and so it's behavior was due to the ersatz gravity!"

"Oh, you mean the combination of the fictitious centrifugal and Coriolis forces that we perceive to be acting on the toothbrush due to the fact we are actually going around in circles with, and so are at rest with respect to, the rotating reference frame of the space station?"

"Yeah."

"Okay."

If we had to calculate things for such a reference frame, which I'd rather just stay out of anyway, we would still need to use the equations for the centrifugal and Coriolis forces.

...and, of course, the third derivative of position with respect to time, as ME has also pointed out, is not energy.

[Grimer]

Imagine you were on a rotating space station...

But you ARE on a rotating space station. It's called Planet Earth

and got out of bed and while still half asleep you dropped your toothbrush:

"Hey! Why did my toothbrush not fall straight down?"

Your toothbrush doesn't fall straight down on Planet Earth.

But you fail to notice it because the deviation from straight-downess is so small that it's below your threshold of perception.

You are very small compared to the size of the earth.

If the space cadet is very small in relation to the size of the space station then he will not notice the deviation from straight-downess either.

Like the people who were first told that the earth went round the sun you are having difficulty in changing your point of view, Furcurequs.

[agor95]

@Grimer

Now that is a good call.

Clear & simple.

And not to many quotes.

[Silvertiger]

Imagine you were on a rotating space station...

But you ARE on a rotating space station. It's called Planet Earth

and got out of bed and while still half asleep you dropped your toothbrush:

"Hey! Why did my toothbrush not fall straight down?"

Your toothbrush doesn't fall straight down on Planet Earth.

But you fail to notice it because the deviation from straight-downess is so small that it's below your threshold of perception.

You are very small compared to the size of the earth.

If the space cadet is very small in relation to the size of the space station then he will not notice the deviation from straight-downess either.

Like the people who were first told that the earth went round the sun you are having difficulty in changing your point of view, Furcurequs.

Hate to break it to you but the earth doesn't rotate. (This information has been available since the late 19th century, but was made definitive and irrefutable in 2013. Most people don't care; only scientists and physicists who believed the opposite for so long. Half of them accepted the evidence with wonder; the other half were so surprised...and so angry and outraged from having this data staring straight at them, instantly having doubt cast on their careers, their lives and their very foundation of beliefs, that the term "Axis of Evil" was re-coined, in reference to the CMB map that's been stirring the whole pot since the 1970's lol.) The first question, of course, is ALWAYS about Coriolis. Coriolis is caused by...something else lol. Think relativity, since Einstein wrote it to support both scenarios, as he knew no one would believe the true case lol...and it is there that we find Scotty's equation for transwarp beaming summed up in a nutshell. :D