Another claim to a working device...

[rlortie]

Silvertiger tiger writes:

It is defined as moving directly away from the center of rotation: outward from it. And thus, it has been justly termed "fictitious" as it has been known for many hundreds of years that this is simply not the case. It is the Newtonian tendency of objects to move in a straight line unless a NET FORCE ACTS (if this sounds familiar it's because it's the first law of motion).

That "tendency" is called inertia and as stated it does not pull directly outward from the center of rotation as some here would like to believe. For example it will not directly pull out a mass sliding on a fixed radial wheel spoke. The straight line that inertia wishes it to take is at a tangent at any given degree of circular motion.

[Wubbly]

Didn't you guys play with one of these as a kid? A piece of paper attached to a stiff backing, spins at a high rate. You drop paint on it, and the paint moves in a very specific path.

http://www.toysrus.com/product/index.js ... 14436:TRUS

[Grimer]

Jim's intuition is a better guide to the practical situation than simple theory.

As a body moves out it is not moving in a circle but in a spiral. As such there is a component of the velocity acting on the centre. This force is real enough.

[Silvertiger]

Silvertiger tiger writes:

It is defined as moving directly away from the center of rotation: outward from it. And thus, it has been justly termed "fictitious" as it has been known for many hundreds of years that this is simply not the case. It is the Newtonian tendency of objects to move in a straight line unless a NET FORCE ACTS (if this sounds familiar it's because it's the first law of motion).

That "tendency" is called inertia and as stated it does not pull directly outward from the center of rotation as some here would like to believe. For example it will not directly pull out a mass sliding on a fixed radial wheel spoke. The straight line that inertia wishes it to take is at a tangent at any given degree of circular motion.

Exactly. I'm glad someone on here knows basic physics. :)

[Tarsier79]

But, if your frame of reference is the rotating component, then the weights initial force is perpendicular. As the weight is released further, its velocity stays the same, so it will decellerate exponentially in comparison to the wheel's angular velocity.

[MrVibrating]

CF and CP forces are exactly radial.

The tangent vector a mass would follow if CP force was suddenly cut can no longer be considered as subject to "centrifugal" force, since that only exists in relation to centripetal confinement. Hence escape trajectories of radially-flung masses are a matter of change in centripetal force, not a matter of CF per se.

Rotation is equal acceleration in two perpendicular planes. For a constant angular velocity and radius, the resultant of the component sums for orthogonal vectors of equal magnitude lies at precisely half their arc length, ie. diagonal to the X/Y.

To suppose otherwise would imply that inertia has a preferential discrimination between the two spatial directions - that it resists accelerations in one direction, more than another.. but preferential reference frames are sacrilegious, and a rotating system's only frame of reference is that of the sphere of fixed stars.

If someone would like to offer a prospective preferential angle, we can make a simple sim with two side-by-side spinning discs, with radially-sliding masses, one of which we can offset by our test angle.

If the force really is greater at that angle, then because it's also a longer path between inner and outer perimeters we'll have boosted both F and d components of our output work F*d integral. Presumably then we can take the shorter, direct and lower-force route back in, and pocket the difference..



TL;DR

This confusion arises because as an orbiting mass actually moves radially its balance of X and Y accelerations necessarily becomes asymmetric - hence less inertia in one direction. But this effect is a confluence of the constraints of displacement, acting in concert with the equality of X and Y inertias, not in spite of them. For a radially-locked point mass, X and Y inertias can only be equal, and their vector sum is perfectly represented by the hypotenuse of a right triangle.

[Silvertiger]

Centrifugal is the perception of an outward linear force from the center. No tangents are involved in this perception. Imagine you're standing inside the ring of a rotating space station. You will FEEL like you're standing still, which creates the illusion of it being a linear force when in fact you're rotating. Centripetal is the actual force applied by the ring at constantly rotating right angles to your position.

[MrVibrating]

Exactly. Sorry, didn't mean to drop the hammer, it's just that "off-radial" radial forces is one of those insidious little notions that needs knocking straight from time to time..

[Furcurequs]

I posted the following in another thread. I thought I should also post it here.

I checked the status on the RAR patent applications. It seems another "final rejection" has been sent out on the first of them. The others are probably soon to follow.

This is after an appeal and a request for a continued examination (RCE), too. So, it's not looking good for Renato.

08-22-2016 Mail Final Rejection (PTOL - 326)

[Furcurequs]

Four years into it and the RAR people are still trying to get their patents!

http://www.google.com/patents/US20130256066

• 02-21-2017 Notice of Appeal Filed
  02-21-2017 Request for Extension of Time - Granted
  02-21-2017 Miscellaneous Incoming Letter
  12-14-2016 Mail Interview Summary - Applicant Initiated - Personal
  12-08-2016 Interview Summary - Applicant Initiated - Personal
  08-22-2016 Electronic Review
  08-22-2016 Email Notification
  08-22-2016 Mail Final Rejection (PTOL - 326)
  08-17-2016 Final Rejection

https://www.google.com/patents/US20130256067

• 04-14-2017 Notice of Appeal Filed
  04-14-2017 Request for Extension of Time - Granted
  12-14-2016 Mail Interview Summary - Applicant Initiated - Personal
  12-08-2016 Interview Summary - Applicant Initiated - Personal
  10-17-2016 Electronic Review
  10-17-2016 Email Notification
  10-17-2016 Mail Final Rejection (PTOL - 326)
  10-12-2016 Final Rejection

https://www.google.com/patents/US20130264148

• 02-21-2017 Notice of Appeal Filed
  02-21-2017 Request for Extension of Time - Granted
  02-21-2017 Miscellaneous Incoming Letter
  12-14-2016 Mail Interview Summary - Applicant Initiated - Personal
  12-08-2016 Interview Summary - Applicant Initiated - Personal
  08-22-2016 Electronic Review
  08-22-2016 Email Notification
  08-22-2016 Mail Final Rejection (PTOL - 326)
  08-17-2016 Final Rejection

https://www.google.com/patents/US20130270039

• 04-14-2017 Miscellaneous Incoming Letter
  04-14-2017 Notice of Appeal Filed
  04-14-2017 Request for Extension of Time - Granted
  12-14-2016 Mail Interview Summary - Applicant Initiated - Personal
  12-08-2016 Interview Summary - Applicant Initiated - Personal
  10-17-2016 Electronic Review
  10-17-2016 Email Notification
  10-17-2016 Mail Final Rejection (PTOL - 326)
  10-12-2016 Final Rejection

https://www.google.com/patents/US20130284540

• 04-14-2017 Notice of Appeal Filed
  04-14-2017 Request for Extension of Time - Granted
  12-14-2016 Mail Interview Summary - Applicant Initiated - Personal
  12-08-2016 Interview Summary - Applicant Initiated - Personal
  10-17-2016 Electronic Review
  10-17-2016 Email Notification
  10-17-2016 Mail Final Rejection (PTOL - 326)
  10-12-2016 Final Rejection

[Furcurequs]

I found a fellow on linkedin Brazil who is looking for a job and who apparently last worked as a mechanical engineer for Rar Energia Ltda. He was apparently with them for 8 1/2 years.

From reading his previous job description, I suspect he was involved with the device. I'll not post the link to his personal info here, though.

[Tarsier79]

Didn't you guys play with one of these as a kid? A piece of paper attached to a stiff backing, spins at a high rate. You drop paint on it, and the paint moves in a very specific path.

http://www.toysrus.com/product/index.js ... 14436:TRUS

I missed this one. That is brilliant proof about frame of reference!

[Tarsier79]

Furcurequs

Rar was never going to work. The principle behind it is flawed. What probably confused them was feeling, or measuring a greater force for a segment of rotation, with a much smaller opposite force in a greater segment.

"Surely there must be an imbalance through an entire rotation. I know, let's build a giant device because my small model doesn't work.... It just needs more weight. Where will we get the money?....."

[MrVibrating]

Didn't you guys play with one of these as a kid? A piece of paper attached to a stiff backing, spins at a high rate. You drop paint on it, and the paint moves in a very specific path.

http://www.toysrus.com/product/index.js ... 14436:TRUS

I missed this one. That is brilliant proof about frame of reference!

I'd never seen this toy before, but Googling it and selecting 'Images', you do see some off-radial skewing...

However this is caused by the inertia of the paint - for a given constant RPM of the spinning disc, as the paint creeps further out, its angular speed is increasing (via the square of radius), and since paint has mass, it also has inertia (and friction!) and so resists this angular acceleration, causing the radial lines it traces to 'lag' the direction of rotation.

The centrifugal force itself however is always perfectly radial.

[Furcurequs]

Furcurequs

Rar was never going to work. The principle behind it is flawed. What probably confused them was feeling, or measuring a greater force for a segment of rotation, with a much smaller opposite force in a greater segment.

"Surely there must be an imbalance through an entire rotation. I know, let's build a giant device because my small model doesn't work.... It just needs more weight. Where will we get the money?....."

I somehow missed your post yesterday.

Yeah, I never really expected much from the RAR people. I'm just fascinated by the size and the looks of their machines and, of course, I'm also still amazed by the time and quite obviously the money that they've sunk into them.

My own leading contender for a potential gravity powered device is in the floor in front of me, and it probably cost less than $10 in materials to build. The weights are clumps of pennies taped on with masking tape, even. ...lol

I had actually splurged a little on this one, too, and used some store bought poster board in making one of the parts rather than using my usual food packaging material.

Thankfully, one can do some practical experiments with this sort of stuff without having to actually be a multimillionaire.

I do need to get back to that one and see about putting the finishing touches on it, but I've been distracted by my magnets lately.

Dwayne