Part Three is the Charm

[johannesbender]

johannesbender,

WHY, why, can't you understand? The ring & Rolls eliminate the very problem that you described. They lift the weights all the way up, so that they can fall again and again. I know I'm wasting my breath--------------Sam

I wont know Sam , i haven't seen your design nor have i spoken about it , good luck.

[eccentrically1]

Fletcher did a sim of the ring and rollers I thought.
The problem is the same for any thing no matter how simple or complex it is; how did he connect the mechanisms to their environment.
I don’t think B. geared the mechanisms to turn the rim slower or faster. That seems wasteful.
The other problem is the evidence we’re working with is missing just enough info to pin down the solution he found so we can only guess what it was. There’s no way to prove it unless he left it in his writings and someone finds it.

[Sam Peppiatt]

jb,
Really-------------Sam

[johannesbender]

jb,
Really-------------Sam

yes really , all i know about your design is you have rollers and weights that move in and out because you added stork bills if i remember correct , but i have no idea how it looks nor have i seen it stationary or in motion ...

And besides i wont comment on it , if someone builds something they know if it works or not therefor i have no reason to comment on others builds , i was talking about physics and not anyone or any build in particular.

[Sam Peppiatt]

ecc1,
My contention has always been; there can only be one way to do the lifting of the weights. of coarse, if you know another way, perhaps you can enlighten me--------------------------Sam

[agor95]

Hi johannesbender

Well I have been told off.

The most simplest problem in physics is seeing kinetic interactions as a function of inertia and only inertia.
And inertia is a property of an electromechanical wave to propagate in a straight line when not interacting with other EM waves.

[johannesbender]

Hi johannesbender

Well I have been told off.

The most simplest problem in physics is seeing kinetic interactions as a function of inertia and only inertia.
And inertia is a property of an electromechanical wave to propagate in a straight line when not interacting with other EM waves.

So it is your opinion that the "gravity wheel" problem is an inertial interaction problem , and what demonstrable physics example correlates to a wheel ?

IMO i think its a height distance traversal to KE problem , and i already mentioned what i think serves as simplistic examples in physics that demonstrates the problem like a bouncing ball that does not have enough KE to reach its initial height again.

[eccentrically1]

ecc1,
My contention has always been; there can only be one way to do the lifting of the weights. of coarse, if you know another way, perhaps you can enlighten me--------------------------Sam

I think this is the right link:

http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewt ... ec#p192329

I’m just saying your concept was simmed.

[agor95]

Hi johannesbender

Thank you for your reply.

I was told a problem is a situation that does not yet have a solution.

I simplified to the best of my ability to the phrase supplied as my answer.

I like yourself am curious what answers others post.

I see no conflict here put an enlightened conversation.

It is agreed there does not appear to be a solution to a bouncing ball and a ramp not being able to reach its initial height.

I have been pondering drawing MT124 for many years because of this very reason.

[Fletcher]

Thinking about simplistic ways to imagine the problem. ,i think the simplest example in physics that anyone might be familiar with , that demonstrates the issue , is a bouncing ball , anyone can experiment and experience the problem first hand , no need to build anything fancy just pick up a ball and bounce it.

Although its not rotational , its the same problem.

Second simplest could be the pendulum , and third i think is a ball down and up a curved track.

All of them display the energy problem in very basic manners , however i was trying to avoid torque and anything around a pivot so i dont want to actually include the pendulum and levers , to me this is not a pivot or rotation specific problem , its a energy problem so a bouncing ball as an example works well except the complications from collisions , perhaps a ball on a track is the simplest example ?

For instance , if a ball is placed on a track which curves upwards one side and remains horizontal on the other , it is easy to demonstrate the if the ball were released from a height on the vertical slope of the track , that the ball could travel quite far along the horizontal part for the amount of height it was released on.

However , the problem becomes clear when the ball has to return to its starting height , and in there lies the devil.

I am kind of curious , what others think serves as a simple example , of what the problem is according to them , or how a certain hypothesis/theory adresses it.

Hi johannesbender

The most simplest problem in physics is seeing kinetic interactions as a function of inertia and only inertia.

IMO i think its a height distance traversal to KE problem , and i already mentioned what i think serves as simplistic examples in physics that demonstrates the problem like a bouncing ball that does not have enough KE to reach its initial height again.

m2c .. put simply, it is both an inertia and a vertical height from PE to KE problem, imo ..

Inertia magnitude doesn't change whether in a gravity field or not, thus Newton' Laws work for all experimental situations at the macro wheel building level ..

Galileo identified the problem and solved it centuries ago ..

He rolled various mass balls down the same tracks/slopes/declines, and allowing for some changes in rolling frictions and air resistance drag he summised that once given GPE that was converted into KE (Rotational KE and Translational KE) at any lesser height than started at .. this was always consistent .. and like a good scientific theory it was measurable and results could be predicted accurately ..

Newton came along later with his formal Laws of Motion etc - but basically .. F = m x a

GPE = m x g x h

KE = m x 1/2 x v^2

Solving for velocity where GPE KE i.e. mgh = m0.5v^2

=> with out doing the formula rearrangement we get v = sqrt(2gh)

That means at any vertical height, if we know the starting height we can predict the velocity (and KE) of the ball on the slope (or in free-fall) after release and gravity acts on it moving it downwards .. and how much GPE (mgh) has been lost ..

This also predicts the velocity at any height lost by a pendulum say dropped from just past 12 oc'l, a bouncing ball, a sphere on a track, a weight on a radius in a wheel, etc ..

Therefore if we don't desire too, we don't need to know or do the math for torque calculations for pendulums falling etc (most of us can calculate it but its not required usually) - all we need to know is what is the vertical height lost and apply v = sqrt(2gh) to find what amount of GPE Joules have been converted to KE Joules, and how much GPE still exists yet to be converted into KE ..

And we reverse that relationship for when a ball or sphere, or pendulum, reverses direction and starts heading up the incline or uphill direction ..

** All that is different for pendulums on pivots etc is that it takes more time to lose height compared to free-fall - note that time is not a factor in either mgh or m1/2^2 equations ..

.............

>> So, altho inertia is invariable it is fundamental to Newtons Laws and F = ma ..

>>> But as jb said height and potential lost only ever gives a SUB-OU recovery when ordinary system friction losses are accounted for - so its a height problem in a nut shell ..

[johannesbender]

It appears that collectively , there is acceptance of a problem/obstacle that needs to be solved (if solvable) , and judging by responses so far it appears that not everyone is out to try and solve the same problem , perhaps some approach it indirectly in a way without having intended to.

The different views , opinions ,and results , from the attempts people have done or do here , cement certain bricks in place for me .

I don't want to sound like i am out rightly stating everyone is admitting to more or less the same cause, but it does sound like it.

[agor95]

I don't want to sound like i am out rightly stating everyone is admitting to more or less the same cause, but it does sound like it.

That a fair assessment.

[Sam Peppiatt]

ecc1,
Fletcher's sim, that you posted was a disaster. The "flats" didn't work. Go on back to page 42 with no flats. The rollers by them selves, as I learned, do nothing in the way of making the wheel turn. What they can do, is; shift / roll around inside of the rings without disrupting the balance of the wheel, as Fletcher proved.

Again, the rollers can't turn the wheel, but they can lift the weights that do turn it. I think the best way is with a toggle linkage. AKA, storks Bills. They are connected to the roller(s) in such a way, to shift the weights---------------Sam

[Fletcher]

Mechanics is primarily the study of "simple machines" for everyday use .. simple machines apply the Law of Levers to manipulate Mechanical Advantage which in turn can redirect and amplify forces, at a commensurate cost .. the objective of using simple machines to the layman is to make it easier to do certain physical tasks by altering the Effort to Load relationship .. Zero Sum Game ..

Since gravity acceleration 'g' is always constant (at your location) it is conservative i.e.1. it can never give back more GPE than it started with i.e.2. a ball dropped can not bounce higher than the height it was released from (unless given an addition acceleration) .. Zero Sum Game ..

Inside a temporary OOB wheel, in order to rotate and circulate the internal weights, the system COM/COG must be replenished each and every full cycle .. because of ordinary system energy losses associated with mechanics an intervention is required to "top-up" the KE of motion (to cover the deficit plus some) so that full replenishment of GPE is attained with additional energy available for the wheel to accelerate to operating speed, thus gaining momentum/RKE ..

This mechanical intervention of "adding extraneous energy" is physical in nature and it is the specific method of the mechanics and its application that we seek to birth a "runner" .. imo !

[preoccupied]

There could be an impact at the end of the ramp that might move a wheel. and shift another ramp. How would this be calculated? How much momentum would be captured by shifting the ramp? Part of the momentum of the ball rolling down the ramp will exist even though it's lifted back up by the ramp shifting. I think that all of the momentum would be saved except for friction. If it takes 20% force to push it back up the ramp like about 12 degree ramp by the ramp shifting and you shift it 40% of it's fall you will have a 140% fall minus 8% the energy to lift up the vertically. That's 20% or 1/5*40% to equal 8% energy required. Is 140% fall on a 12 degree ramp more of an impact than 8% of the force of dropping it straight down? I mean, my math bad maybe.