Part Three is the Charm

[eccentrically1]

Question to ChatGPT .. "Can you think of a way to exchange momentum with the earth's rotation while on the surface of the earth?

In other words - as opposed to gaining momentum as a satellite of earth like the moon - gaining momentum from the earth while rotating with it."

ChatGPT Answer (paraphrased) .. Throwing, jumping, spinning .. gives AM to the earth while on the earths surface.

Some more I can think of - accelerating, and, braking !

...

;7) .. A reverse analogy might be something like this. I place a large vertical flywheel in stands and anchor it to the earths surface. I apply rotational energy to the flywheel to have it spinning at a considerable clip. Attached to the stands is a large set of calipers and disk pads to act as a brake (the external force). I apply the brake and frictions cause the wheel to slow down losing AM. System energy is lost in the form of heat and sound etc. The action of applying the brake creates a torque to the center of the earth, causing the earth to gain in AM by the same amount lost by the wheel as it slows. Energy to apply the brake is equal to the frictional losses etc.

In the 'reverse analogy' above there is a mechanical "Prime Stopper" apparatus. Replace that with a mechanical "Prime Mover" assembly and AM will be transferred from earth to wheel, instead of wheel to earth.

ETA : Prime Stopper and Prime Mover names are moot - both aid the transfer AM between bodies, where one loses and one gains. Only mechanical Prime Stoppers are the most familiar.

Yes. We need a prime earth stopper.

[Fletcher]

Or, at least; a 'Prime Earth Slow Her Down' entity.

The difference, as I see it, is in the examples given by ChatGPT e.g. throw, jump, spin, and mine - accelerate and brake (decelerate) energy must be first given to the system.

E.g. spin up the flywheel (electrical to mechanical energy) before braking it and transferring momentum to the earth; use muscle energy (gained via photosynthesis and metabolism etc) to throw the object and transfer AM to earth. In each case real mechanical energy must be first put into the system from some real source or downstream transformation of energy into usable form.

In the Prime Mover scenario that isn't necessary imo. The earth has AM and RKE in abundance (scale - virtually unlimited). We don't need to put any energy into the system because it is already merrily revolving and wobbling away. Just extract some rotational energy for mechanical Work, and the earth won't even notice given all else that's contributing to her slowing down over millennia.

[Leafy]

The back torque at 6:00 is rather small considering the low mass of the lever and the angle of impact. The upload is of an older design but still applicable. When the 6:00 lever swings up and launches the red weight, its fulcrum moves over near 7:00 and its tip hits the top of the blue guide near 6:00. The angle between the pink force vector and the gray radial line is small. My current design has a spring at the tip of the lever to absorb some of the impact energy as well.

Torque = Frsin(theta), where F is Force vector of the upswing lever, r is radial length at the point of impact and theta is angle of impact.

The net torque of the system mainly comes from the much heavier yellow weights on the descending side positioned near the rim from 3:00 to 6:00.

I don’t know why you call torque at 6:00 back torque. It’s forward torque because it helps the wheel moves faster, not slower. It shoots to the right.

Why do you considered the yellow weights as your net gain?
How do you reset the yellow weight? By shooting it with the red, right?
Where do you get the energy for the red? From yellow, right?
So Overbalance gain from yellow is just enough to shoot the red, you have no left over for friction.

[WaltzCee]

I don’t know why you call torque at 6:00 back torque. It’s forward torque because it helps the wheel moves faster, not slower. It shoots to the right.

Why do you considered the yellow weights as your net gain?
How do you reset the yellow weight? By shooting it with the red, right?
Where do you get the energy for the red? From yellow, right?
So Overbalance gain from yellow is just enough to shoot the red, you have no left over for friction.

This Is a very binary point in the evolution of the design. If one is confident they have the answers, full steam ahead. If a sound principle is guiding the design, by golly build it.

Let the universe test your design. But you better hurry up. I don't need to buy tools nor material.

Before my client and everybody, I challenge all comers to a race.

• Who can make the world's first GPGD wheel.

I mean all that in a good way. Eventually I can see thousands around the world working on designs competing for a prize $USD. I want it to be as big as practical.

This race is just foreshadowing races to come.

Builders, get to your man caves!!

[Leafy]

Mryy,

I simplified the red and yellow into one ball and just shoot it to the adjacent section on the wheel. You still get overbalance feature. But as said the overbalanced just make enough to cover the shooting. The real gain comes from the forward torque if you’re able to see.

[Leafy]

Here is a lever mechanism that I hope has as much value as your binary stars drawing.

A small mass roll through the hoop and end up on the other side.

See if you can get out more than in.

[Leafy]

I think it should be uphill otherwise OU can’t be detected

791E2D77-2448-4A07-BBF0-0C1C04ED58B3.jpeg (13.94 KiB) Viewed 1038 times

[WaltzCee]

https://www.herox.com/EASEPrize

Challenge Overview
The Equitable and Affordable Solutions to Electrification (EAS-E) Home Electrification Prize provides up to $2.4 million in prizes for innovative solutions that advance electrification retrofits of residential homes across all building types and geographies.

I think a GPGD wheel is worth several billion yet if your bag of tricks and tactics short sells ideas, there's millions laying around

back to the man cave . .. .. .

[johannesbender]

Translations. The point I wanted to make was that in Nature you see organisms of different origins mutually dependent on one another for survial, for growth. Rhetorically asking, is it possible for this relationship to have an equivalent in mechanical energy systems?

Wagner you silly ... ... lol (Btw Wagner is cool in my book and a big thank you to him that my concept came into being. :) )

Like the two friends , one could pay the missing fee for the other leaving him unable to pay for himself , but since both are chained together , they cant go in to see the movie.

There would have to be energy that cover both systems , easy to cover one's energy with the other like with lets say a spring or a falling weight like clockwork , however those wind down on energy for a set period , bad example but it comes down to depletion of energy for one , so theres no surplus energy to reset it again.

perhaps you find something special , i just doubt its there in that design .

[johannesbender]

Or, at least; a 'Prime Earth Slow Her Down' entity.

The difference, as I see it, is in the examples given by ChatGPT e.g. throw, jump, spin, and mine - accelerate and brake (decelerate) energy must be first given to the system.

E.g. spin up the flywheel (electrical to mechanical energy) before braking it and transferring momentum to the earth; use muscle energy (gained via photosynthesis and metabolism etc) to throw the object and transfer AM to earth. In each case real mechanical energy must be first put into the system from some real source or downstream transformation of energy into usable form.

In the Prime Mover scenario that isn't necessary imo. The earth has AM and RKE in abundance (scale - virtually unlimited). We don't need to put any energy into the system because it is already merrily revolving and wobbling away. Just extract some rotational energy for mechanical Work, and the earth won't even notice given all else that's contributing to her slowing down over millennia.

Fletcher i have thought about earth to wheel movement before , however all i could ever conjure up was gyroscopic.

[Leafy]

https://www.herox.com/EASEPrize

Challenge Overview
The Equitable and Affordable Solutions to Electrification (EAS-E) Home Electrification Prize provides up to $2.4 million in prizes for innovative solutions that advance electrification retrofits of residential homes across all building types and geographies.

I think a GPGD wheel is worth several billion yet if your bag of tricks and tactics short sells ideas, there's millions laying around

back to the man cave . .. .. .

Actually the maximum worth of PM would be the energy production of the world.


https://ourworldindata.org/energy-produ ... onsumption

160,000 tera watts hour = 1.6 with 14 zeroes kilowatts hours

1 kilowatts hous = 10 cents

16 cents with 14 zeros = 16 trillions dollars

Let’s say your generous and cut the price in half and let some conventional energy fly and only get 1/4 of the maximum

You’re generously receiving 4 trillions a year.

[WaltzCee]

Yeah, you're right

Probable only worth a buck 2 ninety 9. I ain't too good with math.

One trillion is equivalent to 1000000 million or in words, we can say that one million million, that is, 1, 000, 000, 000, 000. Therefore, one trillion has 12 zeros.

There aren't that many electric cars where I'm at but I notice a lot more Tesla's lately.


https://www.reuters.com/article/us-tesl ... SKBN28B5Q8

FRANKFURT (Reuters) - Tesla Chief Executive Elon Musk said on Tuesday that electricity consumption will double if the world’s car fleets are electrified, increasing the need to expand nuclear, solar, geothermal and wind energy generating sources.

Increasing the availability of sustainable energy is a major challenge as cars move from combustion engines to battery-driven electric motors, a shift which will take two decades, Musk said in a talk hosted by Berlin-based publisher Axel Springer.

“It will take another 20 years for cars to be fully electric. It is like with phones, you cannot replace them all at once,” Musk said in a talk streamed on the Bild.de web site, adding that around 5% of vehicles are replaced every year.

[Leafy]

With 4 trillions a years, burn money to warm yourself through the winter so the bills don’t feel useless. Lol

With 4 trillion a year,… who’s this Elon Musk guy? Is he my friend? Lol

[WaltzCee]

who’s this Elon Musk guy? Is he my friend? Lol

Tee hee hee, youse so funny.
I get it.

[mryy]

The back torque at 6:00 is rather small considering the low mass of the lever and the angle of impact. The upload is of an older design but still applicable. When the 6:00 lever swings up and launches the red weight, its fulcrum moves over near 7:00 and its tip hits the top of the blue guide near 6:00. The angle between the pink force vector and the gray radial line is small. My current design has a spring at the tip of the lever to absorb some of the impact energy as well.

Torque = Frsin(theta), where F is Force vector of the upswing lever, r is radial length at the point of impact and theta is angle of impact.

The net torque of the system mainly comes from the much heavier yellow weights on the descending side positioned near the rim from 3:00 to 6:00.

I don’t know why you call torque at 6:00 back torque. It’s forward torque because it helps the wheel moves faster, not slower. It shoots to the right.

Why do you considered the yellow weights as your net gain?
How do you reset the yellow weight? By shooting it with the red, right?
Where do you get the energy for the red? From yellow, right?
So Overbalance gain from yellow is just enough to shoot the red, you have no left over for friction.

Maybe I misunderstood your original post? See upload for clarification. I use an unbalanced, weighted lever which is a wheel in its simplest form. There is torque on both sides that wants to rotate the lever in either direction. We shall call the greater torque on the right side the forward torque as it produces the desired spin direction. The other side is hence the back torque. For a CW spinning wheel the back torque wants to turn it CCW. When the 6:00 lever swings up there will be a little of this torque as it hits some part of the wheel.

The yellow weights are much heavier than the reds and their individual positions around the wheel mostly determine which side (left or right) of the wheel has the greater torque. Here it's the right side for a CW spin. The reds staying on this side will also contribute to the net torque. However their contribution is much smaller for they are of low mass. The main purpose of the reds is to keep the wheel perpetually spinning by:

1. Maintaining the weight/torque advantage for the right side.
2. Assisting in knocking the 2:00 lever out to the rim. The earlier the weights assume the outer positions the better (ideally at 12:00). See B.'s comments for MT13.

Without the reds -- the prime mover constituents -- the wheel comes to a full stop due to gravity and friction. As to your (and Tarsier's) energy discussions, I will assume they are intended for OB wheels where weights are always in contact with some parts of the wheel. Do they apply to my concept of flying weights? My answer: Build.

Remember that B.'s pm wheels exhibited movements of various nonrunner designs in MT as he said so himself in its cover paragraph. Like B.'s wheels, mine starts from an imbalanced state and there is a gain of angular momentum (not conserved), which may sustain motion if utilized in some way.