Forum Index
BesslerWheel.com
Discussion Board

Log inLog in RegisterRegister SearchSearch BlogsBlogs Blog NewsBlog News PollsPolls FAQFAQ FAQWiki
Forum Index
Gravitationally accelerating a raised MoI

 
Page 3 of 3 Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> General Discussion
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
ME
Addict
Addict

Joined: 08 Jun 2005
Posts: 2287
Total Words: 231,118
Location: Netherlands

Reputation: Well respected
Well respected  
PostPosted: Wed Sep 13, 2017 1:24 pm    Post subject: re: Gravitationally accelerating a raised MoI Reply with quote Report Post to Admin

MrVibrating wrote:
However i'm not proposing using G as an MoI modifier - which i'm considering in terms of "centrifugal potential energy" (CF-PE), a quantity that is of direct interest, together with RKE - G could of course be used for this, but for now, in the interests of purity, i'm considering making the radial translations arbitrarily-quickly, while passing through horizontal alignment, so with negligible change in height WRT gravity.

"Centrifugal potential energy".
A funny but peculiar blast from the past: I once heard someone trying out some one-size-fits-all-theory. I kept asking about the specifics, as it couldn't be all his various explanations at the same time. In all reply-vagueness he scratched some surfaces about many things but I kept waiting for one single consistent explanation about his "Ersatz"-thingy: I think he meant Centrifugal Potential Energy as I suspect it to be the most fitting, but it's not my theory so how should I know? Also he had to get rid of some collateral explanations - the inventor should know his own invention best, even when it's just a single word.
I thought it was a very interesting subject, hence I insisted, but somehow we never could get past that definition-barrier...unfortunately.
(next page please. -- Oh darn, now I'm on top of the 3rd :-)

My topic "the importance of raising weights" is about an arbitrary translation at infinite speed... horizontal translations do not work: Horizontal translation IS Height-For-Width. The one thing working is vertically up. Only a slight issue, the energy gain of the increased torque equals the energy requirement of raising this weight.

Quote:
I'm not intending this as a 'perpetual overbalancing' concept, so if that is what it reduces to, it'll hopefully reach that conclusion swiftly..
Tadaa!



_________________
Marchello E.
-- May the force lift you up. In case it doesn't, try something else.---
Back to top
View user's profile
agor95
Aficionado
Aficionado

Joined: 24 Sep 2008
Posts: 824
Total Words: 54,700


Reputation: Appreciated
Appreciated  
PostPosted: Wed Sep 13, 2017 6:19 pm    Post subject: re: Gravitationally accelerating a raised MoI Reply with quote Report Post to Admin

@ME

I feel so dirty after that post I need a formula shower down

http://theory.uwinnipeg.ca/physics/circ/node6.html

So we can calculate the MOI and C/F. The vertical pull is known 12lb.

As the wheel rotates the pull of weight along the rod reduces.

The compressed springs pull up the rod and the mass direction
is no longer circular. C/F reduces dramatically.





screenshot_0.png
 Description:
12 foot wheel. Rotating at 26 rpm. Also the masses are 4 pounds the rod is 4 pound. The length is the unknown.
 Filesize:  19.62 KB
 Viewed:  23 Time(s)

screenshot_0.png



_________________
[MP] Mobiles that perpetuate - external energy allowed


Last edited by agor95 on Wed Sep 13, 2017 8:17 pm; edited 2 times in total. (51 percent)
Back to top
View user's profile Visit poster's website
eccentrically1
Devotee
Devotee

Joined: 11 Jun 2011
Posts: 1942
Total Words: 142,227


Reputation: Acknowledged
Acknowledged  
PostPosted: Wed Sep 13, 2017 7:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote Report Post to Admin

MrVibrating wrote:
eccentrically1 wrote:
MrVibrating wrote:
eccentrically1 wrote:
Nothing has changed from your other threads...
It'll likely end the same way, but the concept's new..


If you think it will end the same way,( and yes, it will), then ... nothing's changed. You are still trying the same concept you tried in into the vanishing point et al.


...that was attempting to decouple angular and linear inertias (MoI vs rest mass), to harness a disunity between the respective kinetic energy terms they're functions of.


All of your threads are variations of the same concept: looking for an energy gain from mass being forced around in a circle, just like most here. It doesn't matter what different approaches you take i.e. Decoupling angular and linear inertias, whatever flippin' flywheels' approach was, etc. They all have the same basic concept and boil down to the fact that rocks don't burn and mass won't somehow create more mass because it can be manipulated using different mechanisms to different positions in a circular wheel.
Use that big brain and words to take a different approach for once.
You can't please everyone.



_________________
Every man is occasionally visited by the suspicion that the planet on which he is riding is not really going anywhere that the Force which controls its measured eccentricities hasn't got anything special in mind.
Back to top
View user's profile
daanopperman
Devotee
Devotee

Joined: 27 Oct 2010
Posts: 1365
Total Words: 171,635


Reputation: Appreciated
Appreciated  
PostPosted: Wed Sep 13, 2017 7:25 pm    Post subject: Re: re: Gravitationally accelerating a raised MoI Reply with quote Report Post to Admin

[quote="MrVibrating"][quote="daanopperman"]Mr V

Quote:
If we make a mark on the mass , and pull the mass right into the center , the mass has to rotate about it's own center of mass , and even if we could pull the mass inward free of charge , the increase of rotational velocity of the mass itself about it's own COR would eat up some energy .


Another fascinating finding in that last thread was also the inspiration for its title - suppose the orbiting mass is tethered on a perfect bearing, and so not 'tidally locked' like Moon and Earth; from a standing-start angular acceleration of the orbit, there is no torque acting upon the mass's own center of mass, so it does not begin to rotate about its own axis...

...which means that as it is dragged into the dead-center of the orbital axis, all of its angular momentum simply disappears, vanishing into nothingness, destroyed, gone, expired.

Mr V ,

The mass I was talking about is supposed to be on a bearing , and tethered from the center of the mass , or the bearing inner race .

A 1 meter arm , turning at 1 rpm , will result in the mass rotating around it's own axis at 1 rpm , from a standing start .
I am sure it is the result of the mass dia , and the mass ( of the mass ) closer ( inside and outside ) on the arm . As different parts of the mass reacts to try and resist the rotation of the arm differently , the mass start to rotate in the opposite direction , and as the
rotational rate increase when the mass is moved closer to the arm pivot , all of the rke of the system is converted into rke of the mass itself when the mass becomes the center of rotation .

See if you can accomplish this with w2dmc , but it is true . A center pivoted bar with 2 equal weights ( on bearings ) on ends , when spun up , will have the weights spinning when the bar is stopped , and when let go , the bar will start to rotate again .

And you might be right with the increase in velocity of the inbound mass , since you add energy into the system , the only place the increase in energy can go is into the mass , and changing rate of rotation .


Back to top
View user's profile
agor95






PostPosted: Wed Sep 13, 2017 8:15 pm    Post subject: re: Gravitationally accelerating a raised MoI Reply with quote Report Post to Admin

@MrVibrating

Quote:
Sorry if i'm missing a key detail


You are seeing the key detail as I have created it so far.

I need to prove, with maths, the 6 o'clock forces can be used
to pull the rod closer to the middle mark on the final section.

Any linear momentum present at the horizontal will improve
the next turn. 3 turns should get the wheel to 26 rpm.

Note. What I need is an engraving, by Bessler, of a rod with two masses at each end. Also it's length needs to be smaller than 12 feet and not to small that it clamps around the hub. We need room for it to move.


Back to top
View user's profile Visit poster's website
MrVibrating
Devotee
Devotee

Joined: 31 Jul 2010
Posts: 1456
Total Words: 480,719
Location: W3

Reputation: Appreciated
Appreciated  
PostPosted: Tue Sep 19, 2017 1:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote Report Post to Admin

Having kicked this around in me head the last few days, the title might've well been "gravitationally braking a reduced MoI", for the same asymmetry, but either way, this interaction does both..


The exploit i'm thinking of can be broken down into what i see as a few main points:

- Normally, without gravity in the picture, when the orbital radius of a mass increases, it's speed decreases, to conserve net momentum. Likewise when radius decreases, speed increases.

- This change in speed is a purely a function of the change in radius of the mass, regardless of any work the mass does while moving out under the influence of centrifugal force. For instance, the potential energy available from the outbound mass could be wasted to heat via a damper, or stored in a spring or whatever, without affecting the change in speed as a function of mass radius. In short, it'll change to the same speed, and thus rotational kinetic energy, regardless of whether we harvest that centrifugal potential energy or not.

- Again, without gravity's involvement, the drop in RPM caused by a rise in MoI also results in a drop in centrifugal force. If RPM's stayed constant, then CF would of course increase with radius, but here, RPM's are falling inversely to increasing radius, and as that speed decreases, so does the strength of CF as radius continues to rise. Take-home point being, that if we're loading up a spring as the mass slides out under CF, then the amount of force we can supply to it decreases with radial distance, and the drop in speed, and thus CF, this extension causes.

- Conversely, when an orbiting mass is pulled inwards, RPM's increase, and hence so does CF, and thus the amount of work required to pull the mass in further.


- Obviously, all else being equal, these two potential energies, for the same mass moving the same radius at the same RPM are equal for input vs output.



Now consider the difference when gravity is added into the mix!

- extending the mass on the descending side of the rotation causes it to momentarily brake against its descent, and gravity thus to re-accelerate it. This boosts the available CF-PE that can be harvested into a spring, say.

- retracting the mass on the ascending side causes it to accelerate upwards, but against gravity, so it accelerates less than it would otherwise, thus lowering the peak CF reached and with it, the amount of input energy we need to supply to pull the mass inwards. In short, lower speed = lower CF = less input work required.

And so that's the basic asymmetry i'm proposing. We can do more work via an extending mass on the descending side of a cycle than is required to retract it again on the rising side.

It looks exactly like an OB wheel - heavy one side, light the other - but instead is powered by an asymmetry of input vs output centrifugal workloads on opposite sides of the wheel, caused by gravity's static, uniform downwards force decelerating an ascending & reducing MoI, while accelerating a descending & increasing MoI, and so the asymmetry is only present when the system is actually rotating.

To top off the illusion, in principle the gain - the difference between the available energy that can be loaded into the spring on the descending outbound side vs the amount of energy the spring needs to retract it again on the ascending inbound side - can be harnessed as an overbalancing load, to initiate and sustain rotation...

The principle seems fairly straightforward to sim, so may have a go in the coming days..


Back to top
View user's profile
sleepy
Aficionado
Aficionado

Joined: 09 Feb 2005
Posts: 361
Total Words: 30,500
Location: earth

Reputation: Appreciated
Appreciated  
PostPosted: Tue Sep 19, 2017 2:55 pm    Post subject: re: Gravitationally accelerating a raised MoI Reply with quote Report Post to Admin

If you have a weight sliding on a rail and being moved by a combo of CF and gravity,there will be no change of orbital speed for the individual weights. There will only be a change in speed of the wheel. If the weights were free to move in a chamber then they would have their own changes of speed, but there would be no way to use it. So weight A moving down with more force in it's own chamber could not help to raise weight B on the ascending side.



_________________
Trying to turn the spinning in my brain into something useful before moving on to the next life.
Back to top
View user's profile
agor95






PostPosted: Tue Sep 19, 2017 4:39 pm    Post subject: re: Gravitationally accelerating a raised MoI Reply with quote Report Post to Admin

@MrVibrating

I have read your last post and I have been were you are now.

In a way I am also at the sim stage with all the calculation error/accuracy problems that holds.

This is not a obstruction to talking but I am proposing a fixed rotation rate 26 rpm. I would like to keep to Bessler's wheel observations.

Agreed the mass has momentum; direction and speed.
The force to change the direction is interesting.

If the mass is fired up towards the center then the circular motion is reduced.

If the mass can be flailed out on the was down good.
Just remember the mass is traveling in a straight line until
gravity arc's it down.

Good Luck


Back to top
View user's profile Visit poster's website
agor95






PostPosted: Wed Sep 20, 2017 11:17 am    Post subject: re: Gravitationally accelerating a raised MoI Reply with quote Report Post to Admin

@sleepy

Quote:
weight sliding on a rail


You have got me thinking - Thanks.

It is not new - just a balanced rod on a pivot.

Then a mass on one side only that can slide along its length.

The mass causes rotation and the mass drops off the end.

No C/F

This is a 'yes so what' post.

I will see if I can make it interesting later.

Regards


Back to top
View user's profile Visit poster's website
MrVibrating






PostPosted: Mon Sep 25, 2017 3:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote Report Post to Admin

Just noticed that the general thematic consistency of many MT images, such as MT 80 through to 90, deals with conversion of angular motion to linear, and then back to angular.

As i'm suggesting here - angular motion causes radial motion, which causes more angular motion. Continual over-balance could be paid for by the difference between the gravitationally-accelerated CF-PE on the descending side, vs the decelerated CF-PE on the ascending side; hopefully there's always enough extra CF on the descending side to slide the mass out into an OB position, even tho input/output GPE remains constant..

Basic concept reduces to: use vertical rotation to generate CF, and use gravity to decelerate the ascending CF, whilst accelerating the descending CF; the resulting input-to-output CF asymmetry being the proposed energy source.. harnessed in the form of OB..?

Basically decoupling GPE from CF-PE. GPE is not speed dependent, so say 1 J gain per cycle would be constant regardless of RPM, although the ratio of that gain to the rising RKE diminishes with speed (possible governing factor). However the rate at which an angular armature falls does affect the CF-PE available from a radial displacement along it, and this obviously increases with rising net system RPM. Since GPE is not speed-dependent, gravity will continue accelerating the falling armature and decelerating the rising armature, thus maintaining the input/output CF workload asymmetry stably as RPM's rise, settling at a speed limited by friction and net centrifugal force; since friction rises with speed, and so does CF, the strength of which could rise to many times that of gravity, and so closing up the asymmetry as the active armatures settle into a minimal, equilibrium oscillation relative to the stable rotation of the net system.

So something like this could tick a lot of boxes..

..but yeah no i always say that..


Back to top
View user's profile
agor95






PostPosted: Mon Sep 25, 2017 11:56 am    Post subject: re: Gravitationally accelerating a raised MoI Report Post to Admin

@MrVibrating

Have read your last post. If it was rewritten then it would be in line with the general points we are working towards.

Regards


Back to top
View user's profile Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic  Reply to topic    Forum Index -> General Discussion All times are GMT
Page 3 of 3 Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3


 
Jump to:   
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You can vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum

Log in:         Remember me     

Please click below to help support this website!

Google