We All Need to Face Up to the Limits of OB torque

[MrVibrating]

Tried the idea i was on about:

..no prizes for guessing it'd be conservative. Turns out the work done each cycle is increasing; presumably due to the rising wheel velocity adding to that of the lifts.

The logic loop applies whatever the absolute wheel speed to the lever motors as the weights pass BDC - thus setting their speed relative to that of the wheel - whenever the following weight is in the 2nd quadrant

I've considered changing the code to control for 'acceleration' rather than 'velocity' - eg. i could set each motor to accelerate then decelerate at equal rates for each half of a lift to eliminate spikes & dissipation, but it seems unlikely to make any real difference.


Still, it's an alternative means of applying OB i suppose - whereas my usual go-to would be radial lifts with angular drops, it turns out you can equally use angular lifts only, still achieving a +/- G-time asymmetry and net momentum gain each cycle, if without yet decoupling the input FoR from the absolute frame. Surprising it never occurred to me before..

Bottom line however is that i'm looking for a momentum gain cycle that has a preferential speed, so as to be consistent with B's hypothetical slow & torquey wheel; this obviously can't do that, so another trick learned perhaps, but no cigar..

[Robinhood46]

Can you try the same thing with the rising weight going slower, you'll need an additional weight because it will be arriving at a position a step back on the wheel, as opposed to a step forward?

[Tarsier79]

RH. are you talking about the above, but in reverse, or use 4 arms? either way, there is no advantage. It doesn't operate for the same reason as this:

[WaltzCee]

or Bessler's belt.

[Tarsier79]

No, That is a different principle altogether.

[WaltzCee]

whatzonstrat
Hi, I have been following, or trying to follow ( with my limited knowledge of maths etc. ) the recent posts about using CF and sudden stops, as the driving force for a wheel.
Some conclusions have been drawn about using weights and gravity alone being futile in our wheel quest, and all the models I have built have proved this to be true.

The first question I need to ask is, when B pulled the pin or released the brake on his wheel, it started spontaneous rotation.
As there is no CF on a stationary wheel, there must have been off centre weights to start it rotating ( even a dumb arse model builder who’s never done a comp. sim. can work that out ! ). So as it starts to rotate, then CF comes into play, have I got that bit right ?
. .. .. .
Dave

As far as I can see you nailed it. However the idea of colliding a couple of equal masses head-on like a Newton's Cradle to switch off c.f. has merit. It might be the energy could be stored in a spring, some sort of mechanical regenerative braking. The conical stainless steel springs CC posted a link to might be excellent for a frictionless braking system.

Although it might not be Bessler's idea it is worth exploring.

[WaltzCee]

I'll grant you there are differences Kaine however there are similarities.

I tried to nail down what principle meant (another tbread) yet I left that discussion. more confused than when I started.

[thx4]

Tried the idea i was on about:
.Turns out the work done each cycle is increasing;

Very nice and inspiring proposal. :)

In my opinion too much movement and not much better, I try to explain with a translator:
we have a configuration of the type Apologia...
It would be enough that around 12 o'clock you restore a little energy gained in the previous descent to accompany the weight of 12 o'clock, then you return as quickly as possible to the 120° position so as to return to the "inertia disk", then reach the vicinity of 12 o'clock and start again.
I am very optimistic about your proposal.
ps : It would be necessary to be effective to pass from the mode imbalance / balances, imbalance / balances, in order to use partly the gravity and partly the inertia the whole in synchronized alternation.
A++

[Tarsier79]

WZ

MrV's and Murillos, as well as MT45 and others rely on a leverage ratio between left and right. In Mr V's, one lever lifting or dropping twice as far and twice as fast is cancelled out by (or uses or gives the same energy as) the two levers moving half as fast.

Mr V is hoping that gravity acting longer on the two levers will add extra energy to that side, looking for a break in energy PE to KE.

[WaltzCee]

No, That is a different principle altogether.

Some of Jim Mich's legacy held in trust at the Museum of Unworkable Devices (the MUD).

I suppose we all should be looking for some differences we can gather here then repurpose there. We're all in search of a viable gradient or difference of potential.

Is the principle more weight (or heavier) on one side than the other or maybe more torque? One factor of torque is weight.

The term Principle needs to be generalized above the mere mechanics embodying the mathematics of the losers. That Principle should describe a mathematical proof of how the present understanding in physics is wrong as described in their language of mathematics.

A good generalization should describe the source of the particular gradient one intends to exploit irrespective of the mechanics used to accomplish the exploit. I notice half a storks bill snaking around the two axles of Jim's understanding of the avalanche.

Given, everyone has the prerogative to approach the study of PM any way they choose however this emerging branch of science needs a more exacting language to facilitate the exchange of ideas.

Although this is just my opinion I'm prepared to defend it.

At times a mobilist gets an idea then breaks out in a fit of PMS (Perpetual Motion Syndrome) giddiness that's practically unbearable. Weve seen that guy many times. Sometimes he's looking back at us in the mirror.

Who ever wants to play the part of the giddy idiot, I'd suggest they root thru the bone yard at the MUD. You probably are going to see your thoroughly examined idea looking for a new owner.

There are centuries of accumulated ideas at Lockhaven just waiting for their resurrection.
https://www.lockhaven.edu/~dsimanek/mus ... ve_180.gif

Will these dead bones yet live?

[Sam Peppiatt]

WaltzCee,

The science is pretty simple; the weights shift in on the up side and, out on the down side-------------------------------Sam

[Tarsier79]

That is still Murilo's Avalanche drive. Perhaps Jim did an animation for him. I can guarantee Jim did not see any promise in this design.

[WaltzCee]

WaltzCee,

The science is pretty simple; the weights shift in on the up side and, out on the down side-------------------------------Sam

That should imbalance the wheel. That will drive a wheel.

What drives that imbalance?

[Sam Peppiatt]

WaltzCee,

The wheel drives the imbalance and the imbalance drives the wheel. It's a chicken or egg deal. Please don't ask me which comes first--Sam

[Tarsier79]

or Bessler's belt.

If you are talking about this one, there is no imbalance. Just because the weight is further from the center does not mean there is more downwards force. There is however more rotational torque on the pivot for each lever.