Flippin' Flywheels

[cloud camper]

I think CG for centripetal gravity would work well as AG can be confused with antigravity.

Think T T Brown electrogravitics https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrogravitics

But not gonna make a deal out of it!

[ME]

As you point out there's already a clear distinction between centripetal and centrifugal. And yet you confuse them.. (perhaps you made a tiny mistake?)

What's more important - or actually the most important - Centripetal and Centrifugal can be looked up.

Why invent a new name, which only obscures, for a thing which already clearly exists? Please enlighten us all !!

I agree: The 3rd derivative of position is Jerk.

This "3rd derivative energy" should have properties related to rotation (as suggested by Grimer), Jerk is not specific. And nor is some F3.
One way or the other there's something not right: I ask for a clarification here.

Please start with providing the SI-Units of the "3rd derivative energy"..
And why isn't Grimer responding to clear this all up?

[cloud camper]

CC: Sorry sir, I am not Grimer.

But seriously folks jerk in a non rotating environment is only a
nuisance but applying it in a rotating frame allows it to be greatly
amplified. Sadly only in simulation at this point!

So we are only interested in the rotating case.

I can't help on the units but research is in progress.

Actually Frank did make a stab at it and it is in his personal forum.
But I'm not a mathematician and I can't vouch for it.

[rlortie]

Why should it be "in simulation only"?

Connect a chain of moderate size or a rope to an object that resists moving when pulling on it. Step back with chain or rope leaving enough slack to create a whipping motion and fling the chain or rope giving a whiplash movement.

Chances are your object will be moved, I have seen and preformed this trick in removing friction fit bearings from shafts and axles.

Call it "jerk" or what ever term you deem necessary, all I know as it works! I fail to see why this would not also apply to an object in rotary or revolving motion.

Ralph

[cloud camper]

Thanks Ralph.

The simulation results are very promising. But it is not physical
evidence.

But yes you're right - that whipping action is nasty.

Then under centripetal acceleration - much nastier!

My test rig is getting close so I will perform the simulation for real.

The nice thing about simulation is you can measure energy in vs energy out but needs to be confirmed in the flesh.

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

Hi,

I dislike the term Jerk, I much prefer Velocity Shunt.

I also dislike Centripetal Force, in planetary movement it is Gravity, and in rotating mechanical structure it is the structural containment. and in such structures the equal and opposite force does not hold true, and that is why if you spin anything to very high speed they break up, if the force inward (CP) was equal to the force outward (CF) then the structure would not be stressed to breaking point, and when breaking up the peaces would not go shooting outwards.

[Grimer]

Hi,

I dislike the term Jerk, I much prefer Velocity Shunt.

I also dislike Centripetal Force, in planetary movement it is Gravity, and in rotating mechanical structure it is the structural containment. and in such structures the equal and opposite force does not hold true, and that is why if you spin anything to very high speed they break up, if the force inward (CP) was equal to the force outward (CF) then the structure would not be stressed to breaking point, and when breaking up the pieces would not go shooting outwards.

Good point.

That why I find it personally helpful to think in terms of spaceship gravity (Ersatz Gravity). For the Space Officer the space ship gravitational force pinning him to the floor decreases as he moves towards the centre. The inverse of Newtonian Gravity.

"Shooting outwards" from the point of view of the Space Officer.
Moving off at a tangent from that of an earthbound observer.

[Furcurequs]

The synonym list isn't in alphabetical order.

artificial, substitute, imitation, synthetic, fake, false, faux, mock, simulated
pseudo, sham, bogus, spurious, counterfeit, forged, pretended, so-called, plastic
manufactured, man-made, unnatural, fabricated
replica, reproduction, facsimile
inferior, low-quality, poor-quality, low-grade, shoddy, substandard, unsatisfactory, adulterated
phoney

Besides, they're synonyms. Their meanings are interchangeable. You can put them in any order you wish.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synonym

Once again, Frank's 3rd derivative energy is 3rd derivative of position, jerk.

Frank's "EG" is ersatz gravity, better known as centrifugal force, which ME prefers to call artificial gravity, because ersatz is confusing to some I guess.

If that list of synonyms is correct, couldn't Frank's 3rd derivative energy be ersatz energy?!

Let's try a few of my favorites from the list:

fake energy
false energy
sham energy
pretended energy
phoney energy

Those would seem to apply.

[ME]

Trevor, I just like to know what it actually represents before I start to like or dislike this certain terminology....
-- I don' t see the issue why it can't be answered --

For example:

Pulling mass inwards creates more angular momentum whilst extending it
out creates more linear momentum.

You are cycling between 3rd derivative energy and 1st derivative energy.

http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewt ... 928#150928

So according to this "information" it follows that:

• * Momentum ::: first derivative
  is like
  * Angular momentum ::: third derivative

Which is a strange list on itself: because what should the second derivative be?
To see this in SI-units:

• 1st: Linear momentum [kg·m/s]
  2nd: <unknown> [?]
  3rd: Angular momentum [kg·m²/s]

Note: dx/dt&#8304;=position [m], dx/dt¹=velocity [m/s], dx/dt²=acceleration [m/s²], dx/dt³=jerk [m/s³], dx/dt&#8308;=shock [m/s&#8308;]

Perhaps I misunderstood because AFAIK "pulling mass inwards" requires energy to overcome the centrifugal-force, and then still the angular momentum remains the same: The radius gets smaller, the angular velocity gets higher. (didn't I mention this earlier?)
I could work this out myself with standard Physics but it is suggested that "3rd derivative energy" explains everything, but the 3rd derivative energy is never explained itself or not consistently?

There is absolutely no indication how this should "work in a "rotating environment".
Cloud camper, please explain what that promise means... even when only applicable in some simulation: the explanation shouldn't make a difference.
So how do you know it "works" when you "can't help on the units but research is in progress. ?
I hope you start to see where all my questions come from.
And if it's easy, than why it's so hard to get a consistent answer.

I haven't mentioned (just to show where it all comes from) but my main reason for pursuing this continuously is because of my attempt to formulate a question for this post
http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewt ... 687#149687.

• That post sounds really interesting.
  I first need to understand what certain things imply.
  I didn't expect such (sub-) question would grow this big.
  But here we are..
  Still no Grimer.
  I think we can do perfectly without those obfuscations.
  But that's what I think.

I just repeat: Grimer, please start with providing the SI-Units of the "3rd derivative energy"..

[eccentrically1]

If that list of synonyms is correct, couldn't Frank's 3rd derivative energy be ersatz energy?!

No, you've got them turned around. Ersatz goes with gravity, not jerk.
This is like Who's On First.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RatKhtboq2E

[Furcurequs]

I understand that Grimer is using "ersatz" with "gravity" to basically speak of centrifugal force.

I also understand that his talk of "3rd derivative energy" is nonsense, thus I was trying to make a joke using some of the listed synonyms of "ersatz" to apply to this imaginary "energy" he is talking about.

3rd derivative energy is thus fake energy!

...and even more fictitious than centrifugal force/ersatz gravity, if you know what I mean.

3rd derivative energy is a substitute for real energy in the way that velocity is a substitute for apples. ...maybe. Who can really say?

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

Hi,

I would call it Centrifugal Force creating Artificial Gravity, which still would be the effects of Centrifugal Force acting on a body, and would still be the opposite to true gravity.

Grimer, Ersatz Energy / Gravity? I do not get, as with the third derivative. The danger here is if you create your own language, don't be surprised if nobody else understands it, even more so if you create your own science.

ME, that makes sense, the third derivative should be Coriolis effect if I spelled it correctly.

[rlortie]

I for one, tire of Frank's consistent reference to 3rd derivative energy being ersatz energy. Ersatz can replace the more common use of centrifugal force within a contained rotating/revolving frame.

"Ersatz" is a German word for fake or imitation, although it may fit in discussing a force finding useful use in space, it is of little to no concern here on earth.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ersatz_good

Frank's time would be better spent keeping his two feet planted here on earth as Bessler did. I do not believe Bessler was aware of the term nor invented his working wheels based on a fake useless so called "energy force" other than centrifugal, which also has not proven to hold sustaining excess energy.

Ralph

[Gregory]

@Gregory

You returned to this topic?!. What did you find positive about the idea?

P.S. have another coffee and jetkin
Regards

I found this topic really good and interesting, because MrVibrating's own line of thinking & progress. His line of thoughts are similar to my own some time before. So this is pretty nostalgic for me.

Gregory..., you noticed ! :-)
I think the recent twist of relativisation (or 'static' ??) is plainly another distraction from that sub-topic which was a sham anyway.
While you feign your møck of counterfeit coffee, let me replicate what I previously manufactured; perhaps with an added summary (or imitation) of the preceding ersatzenizing subtopic?

Here's where Grimer starts-up his nonsense and attempts to take over this topic by griming up irrelevant old posts: [link]
At that point there's absolutely literally NOTHING of any interest added, but yet a perfectly good research-topic by mrV is violated.

In the meantime we learned that "3rd derivative-energy" is one (or more, or all) of these:
- Angular momentum;
- EG;
- Ersatz;
- Artificial gravity [by Me, but seems acceptable];
- Time dependent force (=Impulse force = momentum) [By Ecc1];
- Jerk energy or force [By Ecc1].

And while already "familiar" (link) with this stuff:
- F3;
- Rotational Kinetic energy;
- Angular momentum energy.

We also "found out" that "Artificial gravity" scores higher in similarity because "Artificial" lists alphabetically higher (first) on the synonym-list where "Phony" is last..[By Ecc1]

The main problem with all this:
It misses some desperately needed specifics which only get more obfuscated with any word written or when a new description is added to the list.
I think in effect it sabotages knowledge.
I just return the favor, and resist that nonsense (I try at least)..

I don't think there should be any problem when we would actually use some named 3rd-derivative-energy-thingy to frequently describe some yet unnamed phenomenon, situation or occurrence. It could in fact be quite helpful - that's why we name things in the first place !
(In the meantime, I don' t get the impression that the ones who feel inspired by this 3rd-guy actually know what it should represent either. So a clear definition is also beneficial for them too.)
...but it should just be clear (for everyone of us, as for everyone new !) what this 3rd-thingy in reality represents before we can determine its usability and prevent it from pointing to both rotation and accelerationchange at the same time (perhaps accidentally the most fitting description?) or something completely different.

There...
(This little addition likely doesn't help to turn this topic back around the way it was, but that's suspected to be the whole crux of that 3rd derivative)

ME, believe me my Ersatz coffe was geniously good, with some cinnamon on top! :D

Personally I do not have too much problems with the term Ersatz or EG. However I find it unnecessary and non-scientific. I can’t help but I just smile every time I read it. Actually this is why I joked about it. For me Es ist lustige! (But why "ersatzing" a good topic?)

As for the 3rd derivative… I understand it is the rate of change of acceleration. Maybe there is too much hype to it… Without diving too much into details, we can have two motivating force CW and CCW on a wheel. One is with normal acceleration, the other is accelerated/changing, but the input is the same amount of energy packet for the same length of time for both, just distributed differently in time. Then we might create some wobbling/jerking action for the wheel, but still zero sum energywise, I think. Perhaps the wobbling might be somehow useful compared to some stationary object/mass. I understand playing for the time component in a different scenario might be also interesting. But anyway, it is still not magic. Otherwise we could simply use the 13th derivative, that’s so much more of a rate changer! :)

[Grimer]

Trevor, I just like to know what it actually represents before I start to like or dislike this certain terminology....
-- I don' t see the issue why it can't be answered --

For example:

Pulling mass inwards creates more angular momentum whilst extending it
out creates more linear momentum.

You are cycling between 3rd derivative energy and 1st derivative energy.

http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewt ... 928#150928

So according to this "information" it follows that:

• * Momentum ::: first derivative
  is like
  * Angular momentum ::: third derivative

Which is a strange list on itself: because what should the second derivative be?
To see this in SI-units:

• 1st: Linear momentum [kg·m/s]
  2nd: <unknown> [?]
  3rd: Angular momentum [kg·m²/s]

Note: dx/dt&#8304;=position [m], dx/dt¹=velocity [m/s], dx/dt²=acceleration [m/s²], dx/dt³=jerk [m/s³], dx/dt&#8308;=shock [m/s&#8308;]

Perhaps I misunderstood because AFAIK "pulling mass inwards" requires energy to overcome the centrifugal-force, and then still the angular momentum remains the same: The radius gets smaller, the angular velocity gets higher. (didn't I mention this earlier?)
I could work this out myself with standard Physics but it is suggested that "3rd derivative energy" explains everything, but the 3rd derivative energy is never explained itself or not consistently?

There is absolutely no indication how this should "work in a "rotating environment".
Cloud camper, please explain what that promise means... even when only applicable in some simulation: the explanation shouldn't make a difference.
So how do you know it "works" when you "can't help on the units but research is in progress. ?
I hope you start to see where all my questions come from.
And if it's easy, than why it's so hard to get a consistent answer.

I haven't mentioned (just to show where it all comes from) but my main reason for pursuing this continuously is because of my attempt to formulate a question for this post
http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewt ... 687#149687.

• That post sounds really interesting.
  I first need to understand what certain things imply.
  I didn't expect such (sub-) question would grow this big.
  But here we are..
  Still no Grimer.
  I think we can do perfectly without those obfuscations.
  But that's what I think.

I just repeat: Grimer, please start with providing the SI-Units of the "3rd derivative energy"..

Good points ME.

I've been thinking about all this in terms of linear, shear and hydrostatic strain energy. Also, mapping it to the volume, pressure and compreture (inverse temperature) of the Carnot cycle.

I can now see that motion around the outer circle is linear momentum (1st derv.) where velocity dominates acceleration towards the centre (2nd derv). and motion around the inner circle is where angular momentum dominates the
linear momentum.

This applies to motion in the horizontal plane where the Newtonian Gravity (NG) potential is constant.



When the plane is vertical then NG is a variable and the 3rd derivative comes into play. This is rotation of the plane about the vertical diameter.

Let's call this precession momentum for want of an established term.

So we have 1 dimensional momentum, linear momentum, 1st derv.
.................2 dimensional momentum, angular momentum, 2nd derv.
.................3 dimensional momentum, precession momentum, 3rd derv.

Now these map neatly onto the three Carnot variables.
1st derv. maps to volume.
2nd derv. maps to pressure.
3rd derv. maps to compreture.

And because they do so map I'm confident that by cycling around the three derivatives of motion it will be possible to get energy from a NG potential difference in an analogous way to getting energy from a compreture difference.

So thanks for your post, ME. It's helped me to organise my ideas. :-)

(sorry about the neologism, compreture. I didn't do it to annoy you.
Unfortunately there isn't a word for inverse temperature even though it's more fundamental than temperature - so I've has to invent one - :-)... )