Besslers prime mover and its enabler.

[daxwc]

RH46: I don't throw rocks, or curls. The only thing i throw regarding this sport, is myself, on the floor with laughter, because of how stupid it is. Or to put it another way, I'm not too familiar with the technical terms of this sport, because i have never paid a great deal of attention to it.

I used to be on the high school curling team and college. You do curl the rock meaning you rotate it to change line of delivery; as the stone slows down it will curve more in path as the friction gets greater.

The sport is harder than it looks and definitely more strategy than it looks. It is not that physical so everybody can enjoy it. If you are looking for something a bit more on our way for bananas we will stop by and play shinny. I can’t make any promises on your chicklets if someone takes a disliking to yah.

[daxwc]

My point obviously was do we know all the energy is accounted for.

That conversation leads to this Australian situation since I have to drive through that country to get Fletcher headed home with his belly full of bananas. You are out dune bugging. You decide to bury yourself on the backside of a sand hill till your body is level with the sand. There is two dune buggies coming down the incline one doing 100 mph and one travelling .1 mph. Which one do you chose to run over you? There is no impact involved.

[eccentrically1]

Since there's no impact, then either buggy is a good choice.

[eccentrically1]

We do know all the energy is accounted for in any example. It's converted to some other form even if you can't sense it. Or even if chat doesn't follow the logic of the example.

[daxwc]

Momentum and weight transfer is a big issue.

When one figures out the question then you realise in the roller racers the ramp feels one rolling weight more than all the others at any same point on the ramp other than the start.


PS, imagine there is a scale imbedded on the ramp at some point.

[eccentrically1]

Momentum and weight transfer is a big issue.

When one figures out the question then you realise in the roller racers the ramp feels one rolling weight more than all the others at any point on the ramp other than the start.

I thought hidden energy was the bigger issue.

[Fletcher]

Here Fletcher, hows this sound,

if you have a heavy rotating weight in a tube and that tube rolls in a chamber would you still say the same thing,

my mind sees a moving mass inside a chamber holding rotational energy momentum better than just a solid weight rotating,

the reason i think this is because the rotating weight in the tube rotates at the higher speed even when the chambers curves are slowing the weight adding its rotation momentum in the whole system and over all making the system more fluid ?

i get your point about you only get out what you put in but if you have a reaction that causes rotation, could it be caught in this system and add up to captured momentum,

okay it might not run the wheel but i feel it could create more angles of motion from the reaction point,

give me your thoughts and try and keep them simple for me please.

all the best Andy

Hi Andy .. it's hard for me to visualize the details accurately without some sort of diagram but here goes anyway ..

You imagine a free-to-rotate solid disk placed inside a bigger diameter tube (ring) and it sits at the bottom of the tube [- - this would be something like Sam's rollers inside his circular ring casings - -]

The tube and inside disk are all free to move and rotate inside a larger circular chamber which is part of the wheel structure rotating with it - the tube and its contents sit at the bottom of the chamber - all have their positions of least PE directly below the axle and have no torque .. in effect a nested Russian dolls analogy > a disk > inside a tube > inside a chamber structure ..

When the wheel is rotated by an external force the contents of the chamber is caused to rotate to stay at the bottom > the tube rotate because it is in contact with the chamber wall, and the disk rotates because it is in contact with the moving tube wall ..

The tube and the disk have mass but their MOI's are different - because they are in contact with each other and the tube is in contact with the chamber wall it is like gearing imo - all the objects will rotate at a rate dependent on their circumferences - the average MOI at any position between the tube and disk will effect the overall contribution to the wheels KEt and KEr .. IOW's the angular momentum component is dependent on the average MOI of the wheel and this theoretically determines the proportion of KEr, the rest of Total KE being the KEt ..

I think you would have to do a physical rolling experiment down a ramp to test your theory out and note if there was any additional Angular Momentum and KEr that could do more work than a control experiment for comparison ..

On that note I will post up a very old sim I hunted for last night and eventually found that may throw a curve ball into WM's reliability in some circumstances - and may be of interest to dax and possibly may help explain MrV's possibly errant meterings in his sim in his thread - will make animations and post when I have time ..

cheers ..

[Fletcher]

Here are the WM sim comparison tests to test whether PE lost = Total KE gained, where Total KE = KE translational + KE rotational ..

The first animation is of a disk vs a ring (polygon) - as expected the the yellow disk recovers almost all its height, the difference of 1 J being losses to static and rolling frictions .. HOWEVER .. the ring does not recover nearly as much PE (height) .. And its max KE is short of the PE given .. they have the same standard coefficients for static and rolling frictions ..

The Classical Laws say the ring should have less translational KE at the bottom of the curve than the disk, but more rotational KE than the disk .. added together they should be the same Total KE and recover the same height (PE-mgh) - ok, we might expect some slippage with the ring due to it resisting being rotated as per this discussion but I would expect that to balance out on the way up also, approximately ..

I came across this anomaly years ago for disk, and ring comparisons when building sim tests - I don't think it just my program, and is something lacking in the code design ..

..........

In the second animation I swapped out the ring polygon for 4 small disks at the rim of the ring still totaling 1 kg - note the even larger chunk of missing energy showing in the output meters and graphs - almost no KEr at all, when there should be equivalent to the previous polygon KEr .. hence the occasional comments about polygons and bugs, and point masses ..

Relating to MrV's thread, this swapped out ring should be recording much more KEr than it is imo - thus it's Total KE is way off base, imo ..

Sims included .. I can't spend anymore time on it ..

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



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



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

[Fletcher]

Yet here I give the 2 objects (1 kg each) the same force for 0.25 seconds - and compare the yellow disks KEt vs the red rings KEr (the ring is pin jointed to background) .. Air Resistance is OFF and Gravity is OFF .. Accuracy set to 500 fps ..

Energies are about the same as I would expect - BUT - not in the rolling down and up the slope experiments above ?!

There must be some real-world disk vs ring rolling down and up a slope to compare the recovered heights (energy) i.e. PE lost and gained and confirming teh symmetry of KEt + KEr = KETotal ?

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



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

[Robinhood46]

I don't see where the problem is.
In an imaginary environment without resistance, the two objects would still arrive at the bottom, and the top, at different times, but they would both get to the same height, because there are no loses.
Turn on the resistance and the interaction of the objects is different, so one has more losses than the other.
What happens if you turn off air resistance? Would this not get the hoop to have less losses and reach a higher height?

[johannesbender]

@Fletcher you have to remove elasticity ...

[Roxaway59]

I've not been feeling well these past couple of days but I have read some of the posts with interest. On the subject of WM2D I found this thread from 17 years ago and some people had doubts about it then.
Graham

[Roxaway59]

Here's the link.
https://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2165

[daxwc]

JB: @Fletcher you have to remove elasticity ...

Fletcher has gravity off so how does that change it?

May as well go a step further, what about a viscous fluid in a finned hoop half-filled going down an incline plane.
Or try two substances that repel each other; mercury in a glass tube.

[johannesbender]

Here are the WM sim comparison tests to test whether PE lost = Total KE gained, where Total KE = KE translational + KE rotational ..

The first animation is of a disk vs a ring (polygon) - as expected the the yellow disk recovers almost all its height, the difference of 1 J being losses to static and rolling frictions .. HOWEVER .. the ring does not recover nearly as much PE (height) .. And its max KE is short of the PE given .. they have the same standard coefficients for static and rolling frictions ..

The Classical Laws say the ring should have less translational KE at the bottom of the curve than the disk, but more rotational KE than the disk .. added together they should be the same Total KE and recover the same height (PE-mgh) - ok, we might expect some slippage with the ring due to it resisting being rotated as per this discussion but I would expect that to balance out on the way up also, approximately ..

I came across this anomaly years ago for disk, and ring comparisons when building sim tests - I don't think it just my program, and is something lacking in the code design ..

..........

In the second animation I swapped out the ring polygon for 4 small disks at the rim of the ring still totaling 1 kg - note the even larger chunk of missing energy showing in the output meters and graphs - almost no KEr at all, when there should be equivalent to the previous polygon KEr .. hence the occasional comments about polygons and bugs, and point masses ..

Relating to MrV's thread, this swapped out ring should be recording much more KEr than it is imo - thus it's Total KE is way off base, imo ..

Sims included .. I can't spend anymore time on it ..

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

JB: @Fletcher you have to remove elasticity ...

Fletcher has gravity off so how does that change it?

May as well go a step further, what about a viscous fluid in a finned hoop half-filled going down an incline plane.
Or try two substances that repel each other; mercury in a glass tube.

No he does not have gravity off , it affects the results because they bounce instead of just roll , let him turn off elasticity and you will see the same GPE results.