Zeroing in on Bessler's wheel

[WaltzCee]

.
.
Subthread?

by all means, circle squarer, do continue. Let's examine your UIAF Technology.

[WaltzCee]

The only thing unusual about it, will be that many years ago we were stupid enough to actually think it was impossible.
It will probably be just as difficult to believe this, as it is for us to believe we actually burned witches and thought the earth was flat.

the good 'ol days. I have a list. If she doesn't burn, she's a witch!

[WaltzCee]

>Can God make a rock bigger than he can pick up?
. .. .. .

I think the crux of it is time. A fast powerful force might spin a long time as a little tortuga passes by to notice it while on the way to see new, different things.

• PM is a function of ∆t

you may quote me, until further notice & only on that point.

[agor95]

As a few want me too continue

Yes, do continue.

It would be lovely to explain how too accelerate a wheel.

We all have ideas and build and calculate and learn.

It would be lovely for us collectively be in a position to say 'I get it'.

This sub-thread is about this inspiration

So it would seem to me that you would prefer a design that keeps the path to a minimum distance for any given weight mass.

Does anyone prefer the minimisation of accelerations of the masses instead of distances.

That was part of my inspiration.

Would you like to develop the line of reasoning?
What was your next step starting from this inspiration?

Sigh.
If you minimize the distance, it follows that you minimize the acceleration.

Yes, do continue.

can explain how to accelerate a wheel, please continue

eccentrically inspired these posts and here we are.

So lets start :-

My inspiration is a mass tries too minimising it's acceleration within the device.

The device is constructed to cause conflict between one mass an others.

To simplify understanding gravity is just an acceleration between the device frame and the masses within.

Distance is a limitation of the device.
Just think on a inertial frame of the mass.
No acceleration it is stationary.

I await inspirational posts from you

[Sam Peppiatt]

Right Agor, I'll get right on it--------------------Sam

[agor95]

That was part of my inspiration.

Above leaves the question; what was the other part?

Anyway a device that appears non-moving has excess acceleration and this acceleration is not distributed evenly
over the objects within the device.

An object in free fall from it's viewpoint is not moving or accelerating; The tell is the object is weightless.

I appreciate it's normal to think that it is, but has that thinking got anyone to the answer?

Objects distance limited in a device will move too minimize their individual accelerations.

Have a think about that in relation to your experiments and current understanding?

[johannesbender]

I asked chatgpt to explain the energy needed to lift along 2 paths ,one 100% vertical at 1 meter ,and the other measured 10 meter horizontal and 1 meter height (not much different , but its a better written summation):

When dealing with gravity and comparing two paths with the same vertical height change but different horizontal distances:

- The energy required to lift an object to a specific vertical height is determined solely by the vertical height change, regardless of the horizontal path taken.
- Gravity only acts vertically and does not directly affect the energy required for horizontal motion.
- Therefore, if the vertical height change is the same (e.g., 1 meter), the energy required to lift an object to that height will be the same for both a purely vertical path and a path with a horizontal component when considering gravity alone.

and the mathematical proof i asked it for :

Certainly, let's use mathematics to prove that when dealing with gravity, the energy required to lift an object to a specific vertical height is determined solely by the vertical height change and is independent of the horizontal distance traveled.

We'll use the work-energy theorem to demonstrate this:

The work-energy theorem states that the work done on an object is equal to the change in its kinetic energy (KE) and potential energy (PE).

Mathematically:

Work = ΔKE + ΔPE

In the context of lifting an object against gravity, the work done is equal to the change in its potential energy:

Work = ΔPE

The potential energy of an object near the Earth's surface is given by:

PE = m * g * h

Where:
- PE is the potential energy.
- m is the mass of the object.
- g is the acceleration due to gravity (approximately 9.81 m/s² on the surface of the Earth).
- h is the height above a reference point.

Now, let's consider two scenarios:

1. A purely vertical path with a 1-meter height change:
- In this case, Δh = 1 meter.
- Work = m * g * Δh = m * g * 1 = m * g

2. An inclined path with a 1-meter vertical height change and a 10-meter horizontal component:
- In this case, Δh = 1 meter (vertical height change).
- The horizontal component does not affect the work done against gravity because gravity acts vertically, not horizontally.
- Work = m * g * Δh = m * g * 1 = m * g

In both scenarios, the work done against gravity is the same (m * g) because it depends only on the vertical height change (Δh) and the mass (m), and it is independent of the horizontal distance traveled.

Therefore, mathematically, the energy required to lift an object to a specific vertical height is determined solely by the vertical height change and is the same regardless of the horizontal distance traveled when dealing with gravity.

However as stated , as soon as you account for resistance and friction , then one may or may not be more efficient , depending on how much friction and resistance each would have in the real world depending on the designs.

But , neither generic use cases of any one , would result in a self sustained rotating wheel if the energy is not enough.

[agor95]

Hi johannesbender

Your chatGPT text is fine.

Just been away learning another section of javascript.

For the record:

Treating gravity as an accelerating inertial frame at a constant rate upwards.
Then any movement vertically will be conservative.

An object requires a force [acceleration] greater than gravity to go up and less than to come down.

An acceleration side to side or forwards to backwards does not effect each other or the vertical element above.

However after you stop accelerating an object it travels at a set speed.
But due to the constant acceleration vertically, extra to our efforts, the object looks too minimize it's acceleration.

Like rolling down a hill until it hit the bottom.

[Sam Peppiatt]

jb,
There is a trick to it. that's unknown; how Bessler did it-----------------------Sam

ETA,
Apparently, the issue that you are concerned about, doesn't exist once you know how to do it.

[Sam Peppiatt]

Agor,
A weight can be lifted upward quite slowly and the acceleration would be very low, much lower than the acceleration due to gravity, don't you think? Also side to side it could be much higher-----------------Sam

[WaltzCee]

. .. .. .

For the record:

• Treating gravity as an accelerating inertial frame at a constant rate upwards.
  Then any movement vertically will be conservative.

This is not news.

• An object requires a force [acceleration] greater than gravity to go up and less than to come down.

a term you might be groping for is escape velocity.
Most skilled in the art of PM keep that on their things to ponder upon list.

• . .. .. .

What isn't quantified to date & as yet is the amount of energy required to spin the flywheel up to a sufficient velocity so that after deployment of the tether the projectile is at maximum escape velocity to achieve a certain vertical height [Pe gain] - this could be guestimated using math if you knew all the variables & mass distributions etc OR you could attach a half atwoods drive system & let a known mass fall a known distance & see what flywheel velocity was required to get a projectile to a known height - if the two energies are different in favour of the Pe gain from the projectile you have a winner, both in theory & reality & we can almost close up shop & go home

.

[agor95]

Agor,
A weight can be lifted upward quite slowly and the acceleration would be very low, much lower than the acceleration due to gravity, don't you think? Also side to side it could be much higher-----------------Sam

I understand the idea. The concept I posted before with gravity being equivalent to an upward vertical acceleration.
This as stated is not new and the principle chatGPT supplied is likewise not new.

When a mass is lifted upwards quite slowly it's weight increases with the extra acceleration we give it.
That is added to the background acceleration due to gravity. It is correct to say extra acceleration in any direction can be greater
than the acceleration due to gravity. It has been shown here in the forum how weak gravity can be in a rotating device.

What I suggest is nothing here is new, but thinking from a different perspective is an option if you want to look from a different viewpoint.

Now I am off to do some more javascript studying.

[johannesbender]

We have to go down to town , its 10 km straight drive and its downhill , we free the car downhill all the way to town , now we have to go back home uphill , its 10 km and we only have 8 km worth of fuel , without extra fuel or making the car more fuel efficient to reach the distance with less fuel ,we wont make it home .

Driving any which way and direction we want , left right circles swerving backwards forwards, wont change the fact we have less fuel than needed available .

That's the story in a different nutshell ..

[agor95]

Hi johannesbender

Agreed that sums it up.

[Sam Peppiatt]

How could you possibly be wrong---------------Sam