Cutting corners

[johannesbender]

The theory i have for a gravity only design to be succesfull is that it has to overcome multiple difficult or "impossible" problems , for instance in the real world where losses can and absolutely will take place there is a shortage on energy.

Due to losses it must be acknowledged that the total amount of motion or energy for a cycle of PE to KE , has a limit or maximum which is less than what is required for a reset to happen.

If this fact is accepted , which it must be because it is inescapable as far as reality has shown it to be , then some logical conclusions can or must be drawn from this.

If a gravity only design is to be successful , in reality where certain things in physics are what they are and cannot be changed , then the limitations are set and it must work within the confines of those limitations and cannot by no means cross or walk past those lines drawn in the sand.

So it is my conclusions that the amount of total degrees of motion achievable that the energy budget for rotation delivers , is the upper limit of useable degrees within which a reset must be done for a cycle to complete , instead of trying to push towards or past 360 degrees for a reset which is not a realistic or possible approach.

Further more it is also my conclusion that , if the amount of degrees are limited to less than 360 degrees by the energy losses , a reset must occur within this limitations , but to do so there needs to be some amount of energy usage skipped , for example if the amount of losses were to be about 30 percent of the circle , then that amount of degrees or more must be skipped within a cycle to reach a reset.

This is like me saying , if i were to drop a ball from a 1 meter height , it must bounce and climb back up to 1 meter , but in reality it is limited in its total traveling distance upwards which is less than 1 meter because of losses , which means for it to reach its initial height to reset , somewhere along the balls travel a magical skip must happen.

This is the principle i think the ap wheel perhaps display  ,let me make up an imaginary example.

Lets say the black sections are 90 degrees each which is a total of 270 when added together , and the 3 white sections are 30 each which gives a total of 90 , 270 + 90 is 360.

Now if you imagine it in terms of energy and the white sections were to be skipped in energy usage while the black sections were to use energy for motion , then the total energy used to reach reset in a cycle would have been 270 degrees worth of energy instead of 360 , which leaves 90 degrees worth of energy , however lets subtract about 30 degrees worth of energy due to losses , which comes to 90-30 =60 , so there would be a surplus of 60 degrees worth of energy after reset in this imaginary example , this is more or less theory .

You would likely say the energy usage cannot be skipped , i imagine to skip a certain  amount of work ,the amount of distance the force must travel must be skipped , since w=f*d if the distance a mass moves is close to zero in the equation then no work has been done , distance is not to be disregarded in this mystery.

However when it comes to gravity , it is up and down in distance and not just in any  direction across a distance , since pe=m*g*h , mass and gravity is the set value here , height is the changing variable in a gravity only design , so a distance skip that effect the height would be a lift that takes less work in total for that distance than it would if the distance was not skipped .

This is in my opinion in my theory how a reset along a circle of 360 degrees could possibly be done in the less than 360 degrees worth of distance/work/energy available ....without discussing the mechanism i propose as an example of how to do it.

[Tarsier79]

If a gravity only design is to be successful , in reality where certain things in physics are what they are and cannot be changed , then the limitations are set and it must work within the confines of those limitations and cannot by no means cross or walk past those lines drawn in the sand.

However when it comes to gravity , it is up and down in distance and not just in any direction across a distance , since pe=m*g*h , mass and gravity is the set value here , height is the changing variable in a gravity only design , so a distance skip that effect the height would be a lift that takes less work in total for that distance than it would if the distance was not skipped .

so a distance skip that effect the height would be a lift that takes less work in total for that distance than it would if the distance was not skipped .

The first part of your post acknowledges COE. I don't see how a "skip" overcomes, negates, works around or bypasses that. You can't have cake and eat it too. Either, there is a flaw in conventional physics, or PM is not possible.

[johannesbender]

If a gravity only design is to be successful , in reality where certain things in physics are what they are and cannot be changed , then the limitations are set and it must work within the confines of those limitations and cannot by no means cross or walk past those lines drawn in the sand.

However when it comes to gravity , it is up and down in distance and not just in any direction across a distance , since pe=m*g*h , mass and gravity is the set value here , height is the changing variable in a gravity only design , so a distance skip that effect the height would be a lift that takes less work in total for that distance than it would if the distance was not skipped .

so a distance skip that effect the height would be a lift that takes less work in total for that distance than it would if the distance was not skipped .

The first part of your post acknowledges COE. I don't see how a "skip" overcomes, negates, works around or bypasses that. You can't have cake and eat it too. Either, there is a flaw in conventional physics, or PM is not possible.

Thus far in all of history the losses have been shown to be unavoidable , so for a gravity only wheel , one which is not supplied by any other external energy there will be unavoidable losses.

Here is an example image , just drawn for the sake of an example.

....

ex.png

....

Lets say the angle from A to B is 180 , and from B to C is 150 , and from C to A is 30 degrees , so the total maximum angle for travel would be 180+150 = 330 , 30 shy of 360 which is due to the losses .

Lets say during the motion from A to B which is the PE loss to KE for a mass released from 12 at the circle's radius , and from B to A is the KE turned back to PE for the motion of the mass back up , however due to losses the mass makes it at maximum from B to C.

The total required and missing KE from C to A is equal to the total losses , and the height from D to E is equal to the required missing height travel along the vertical which is missing .

So given that the limitations are such , due to losses and because a gravity only wheel design with no other energy inputs , can not complete its cycle to reset since its KE does not allow the mass to travel the required angle / distance around the center , the only option i see for such a design is that it needs to skip distance .

The total available KE can only have the mass make its way from A around to C 330 degrees during the cycle ,the idea is to then reach reset within that 330 degrees or less.

In a perfect world scenario , lets say the mass travels from its released point at A comes around to B and back all the way to C , but given the mechanical ability , the mass skips traveling the distance from C to A , and so the reset is completed .

If you were then to count the total angle traveled for the mass under its KE , it would be from A to C which in this example would be 360 - 30 = 330 , which is less than 360 by 30 degrees but within the limits of available energy ,now if this effect is increased to lets say a section of 60 degrees instead of 30 degrees then there should be an excess of 30 degrees of KE after the reset was reached.

[Fletcher]

Or .. apply Ockham's Razor jb ..

• Newton's Laws of Physics are complete, and accurately predict all mechanical examples actions i.e. => ke = mgh

• Archimedes Law of Levers (LOL) can not be violated i.e. LOL's manipulate ratio's - all Simple Machines adhere to them without exception

• For all mechanical applications there are always unavoidable energy losses which deplete the energy budget, leading to apparatuses settling at their position of least GPE and never achieving reset vertical height without a further mechanical intervention

• This non-negotiable intervention of the mechanical kind gives the apparatus additional KE (speed/impetus) to reach and pass over the maximum reset vertical height => and tops up the energy budget, plus some, to manifest continuously self-moving conditions

• IMO

[daxwc]

JB: However when it comes to gravity , it is up and down in distance and not just in any direction across a distance , since pe=m*g*h , mass and gravity is the set value here , height is the changing variable in a gravity only design , so a distance skip that effect the height would be a lift that takes less work in total for that distance than it would if the distance was not skipped .

This is what I was wondering about before in a slight variation. That is there is a minimum energy to lift any object to a certain height? Move it too fast up and you expend more energy than you would have needed. We know kinetic energy of a freefall but do we know the least amount of energy to raise something as this is tied to time. But the fly in the ointment is Bessler says it needs to be raised fast; maybe as making it weightless to the wheel.

[JUBAT]

For the imbalance to be constant, you only need it to happen from A to C. Momentarily and then quickly retracted. As far as the wheel is concerned, it will always be imbalanced from A to C if you quickly stick a weight up and retract it and you have one right behind it instantly ready to replicate the action.

Trixterisms

[eccentrically1]

Cutting corners or skipping distance or taking less time ; it doesn’t matter how it’s phrased.
There is no path weights can take that will accelerate themselves in a circle.

[johannesbender]

A question to be asked now , is it possible to create a mechanism to cross a distance across such a gap , in a near instant ?
The answer is yes , however it is tangled up in other complicated and perhaps impossible problems too.

[daxwc]

This is in my opinion in my theory how a reset along a circle of 360 degrees could possibly be done in the less than 360 degrees worth of distance/work/energy available ....without discussing the mechanism i propose as an example of how to do it.

Yet, energy to get to GPE hasn’t changed. Now if you use the radius of the circle for your mechanical distance loss you might be able to get more force per height of GPE. This might be considered skipping distance into the horizontal.

[bruno]

Non sono un fisico o un matematico ma nelle vostre considerazioni non tenete conto di aspetti importanti che fanno si che la mia ruota funzioni: alla pagina 3 di "curiosità e domande" lo schema della ruota evidenzia almeno tre aspetti; la partenza della ruota è sempre leggermente sbilanciata; la salita del peso è molto inferiore a quello in discesa per causa dell'inclinazione e di un passaggio di orbita; inoltre si deve tenere conto dell'effetto pendolo non indifferente; altro piccolo ma non meno importante: la salita all'inizio non è rettilinea ma curvilinea questo da maggiore slancio iniziale al peso ( video YT bruno calzamiglia: Amazing ).
Saluti da Bruno

[daxwc]

Easy concept until torque enters the equation.

[johannesbender]

This is in my opinion in my theory how a reset along a circle of 360 degrees could possibly be done in the less than 360 degrees worth of distance/work/energy available ....without discussing the mechanism i propose as an example of how to do it.

Yet, energy to get to GPE hasn’t changed. Now if you use the radius of the circle for your mechanical distance loss you might be able to get more force per height of GPE. This might be considered skipping distance into the horizontal.

Correct total height did not change , so the pie chart type of description that i did is a way to show what i mean when i say a skip must happen , however the skip must effect the height ,which is the same as saying it must be lifted however the lift is not a traversal of distance , the work required to raise a mass is determined by w=f*d , so to be an effective skip the work requirement must be much less than a normal lift , this is what i deem the important part of such a skip because there is no energy to raise the mass in the normal gravity only designs .

[Fletcher]

JB: However when it comes to gravity , it is up and down in distance and not just in any direction across a distance , since pe=m*g*h , mass and gravity is the set value here , height is the changing variable in a gravity only design , so a distance skip that effect the height would be a lift that takes less work in total for that distance than it would if the distance was not skipped.

This is what I was wondering about before in a slight variation.

That is, is there a minimum energy to lift any object to a certain height?

Move it too fast up and you expend more energy than you would have needed. We know kinetic energy of a freefall but do we know the least amount of energy to raise something as this is tied to time.

But the fly in the ointment is Bessler says it needs to be raised fast; maybe as making it weightless to the wheel.

dax .. have you ever thought about what raising B's. weights "fast" might functionally mean ? Under what scenario's (here's a couple that I think about from time to time) ?

• Give the weights an extra acceleration from the 'get go' so that at the vertical height gain required to reset GPE they arrive with an excess of KE (speed/momentum). If they arrive at destination height in a shorter time then time becomes a relevant factor to the mechanics of achieving that quicker than normal transition time .. And work doesn't recognize time factor => KE = mgh

• The weights rise an ordinary vertical height with no excess of KE at short-fall destination (short of GPE restoration height because of ordinary system energy losses) and the wheel assembly then receives a universal impulse to carry the weight to full restoration height with additional momentum/KE/speed. Because it transitions under the "pulsed wheel" scenario it also arrives at restoration height "fast" because 'the wheel frame' has an excess of momentum/KE etc. In this scenario the mechanics of the fast lifting (i.e. quick rim rotation) are not directly time relevant per se, imo ..

You might argue I've just sidelined the KE = mgh and Work does not factor time argument for this second scenario, and not really dealt with it, and you'd be right .. but I also don't have to invoke chronos and horology into the time uncluttered world of straight forward Newtonian Physics of mechanics either lol ..

[johannesbender]

JB: However when it comes to gravity , it is up and down in distance and not just in any direction across a distance , since pe=m*g*h , mass and gravity is the set value here , height is the changing variable in a gravity only design , so a distance skip that effect the height would be a lift that takes less work in total for that distance than it would if the distance was not skipped.

This is what I was wondering about before in a slight variation.

That is, is there a minimum energy to lift any object to a certain height?

Move it too fast up and you expend more energy than you would have needed. We know kinetic energy of a freefall but do we know the least amount of energy to raise something as this is tied to time.

But the fly in the ointment is Bessler says it needs to be raised fast; maybe as making it weightless to the wheel.

dax .. have you ever thought about what raising B's. weights "fast" might functionally mean ? Under what scenario's (here's a couple that I think about from time to time) ?

• Give the weights an extra acceleration from the 'get go' so that at the vertical height gain required to reset GPE they arrive with an excess of KE (speed/momentum). If they arrive at destination height in a shorter time then time becomes a relevant factor to the mechanics of achieving that quicker than normal transition time .. And work doesn't recognize time factor => KE = mgh

• The weights rise an ordinary vertical height with no excess of KE at short-fall destination (short of GPE restoration height because of ordinary system energy losses) and the wheel assembly then receives a universal impulse to carry the weight to full restoration height with additional momentum/KE/speed. Because it transitions under the "pulsed wheel" scenario it also arrives at restoration height "fast" because 'the wheel frame' has an excess of momentum/KE etc. In this scenario the mechanics of the fast lifting (i.e. quick rim rotation) are not directly time relevant per se, imo ..

You might argue I've just sidelined the KE = mgh and Work does not factor time argument for this second scenario, and not really dealt with it, and you'd be right .. but I also don't have to invoke chronos and horology into the time uncluttered world of straight forward Newtonian Physics of mechanics either lol ..

I would like to respond to this too , because this is part of the theory i was developing for the design ,but before i can respond ,i think my reasoning would become clearer if i start out with the following simple image.

...

ex1.png

...

To highlight further on what i was talking about and make a point , which i know most if not all here , already know , if there were 2 radii as drawn in the image , one much smaller and one larger both on an axle , and a mass was up at 12 at A and one at 6 at C.

If this were to rotate , mass A would cause the rotation along the outer radius while falling towards D , and that would lift and rotate mass at C on the inner radius up to B .

Now for the action to reset , the mass down at D must be raised up to C and the mass at B must be raised up to A , this is a point we all know by now.

These are the distances for an example , A to B and C to D , that there aren't enough energy for , which must be skipped to reach a reset in the example.

However this cannot be a traversal of mass , as in the traversal of mass which is raised from B to A and from D to C , because the amount of work would be to much across the distance.

But there is a way to skip the traversal across that distances , which makes the masses be at the correct heights preemptively without lifting them to that heights with another force .
Traversal of mass across a distance costs work in the form of w=f*d , however masses which are placed along arms which makes up those distances preemptively such that when they move from those arms over to the required positions can do so by being already very close to that point , and when they do the distance in the work equation for that would be much much much smaller.

The point being , mass can be in position preemptively by using the principle of how the position of the masses does not matter on a roberval's arms .
I am avoiding drawing an example right at this time , but if you imagine the white vertical lines between the two radii drawn , were those arms , and if the mass at C were on the bottom arm which were on the outer radius at D, and it moved from the top of the arm to the inner radius at C , the height the mass has moved from the top of the arm to the inner radius would be very small , the arm becomes the distance as a structural mechanical piece , and since its not a traversed distance for the mass from D to C w=f*d the work and distance is skipped quite fast (up almost instantly).

edit : im to tired to type further now.

[johannesbender]

ex2.png

To continue on for now ...

When i started fleshing out this theory , i realized if the arms ends reached only to the exact distance between the outer and inner radii , then if the mass were to transfer from the arm to the required position on the inner radius , that's the arm below at 6 o clock which is following along the outer radius transferring the mass to the inner radius below at 6 o clock , that the transfer would require energy to move the mass over from the arm to the inner radius .

But to solve that i came up with the idea that if the arms ends were to reach beyond the required distance between the outer and inner radii , then the mass can transfer from a arm to the radius by falling in to place instead , a gravity solution to the transfer.

To accompany the description of this part of the idea , i have added an additional image , if compared with the previous image , it would be seen that the arms are extended much longer and also goes extends up and down , and that the mass at the top of the arm of the outer radius at E can fall down towards the inner radius at C , and that the mass at the inner radius at B can fall down on to the arm at D of the outer radius.

So that means , the mass can fall from the outer radius to the inner radius , and the mass can fall from the inner radius to the outer radius , is it strange to say they climb by falling ?

edit : i see i added two D's , just erase the bottom D from your perception.