Hypothesis .. Raising GPE without using Law of Levers ? ..

[Fletcher]

@ all .. apologies for the delay in starting my promised new topic - the last 2 weeks have been fine and dry so every day I have been jackhammering and smashing up concrete and wheelbarrowing it away - plus, pulling down a 2 meter high 40 meter long retaining wall at the same time - today it was a showers and drizzle day so a day off - only part way thru so carry on tomorrow ..

Anyways, by way of setting the scene going forward .. I intend this topic to discuss and share some things I think I found out some time ago regarding a potentially practical theory/method on how to mechanically raise a weight(s) GPE without using the conservative Law of Levers ( LOLs ) - a big and bold statement I know, heresy to some ..

I will start to flesh out the topic title by introducing some simple sims and analysis - this will hopefully give a better picture and background to what I am proposing than words alone can do - this will slide on into more complex sims and concepts, but nothing above anyone's head - all based on Classical Newtonian Physics and Mechanics ..

I invite everyone to review the sims and animations as the narrative develops - open to discussion as we move forward ..

** No firm promises, because I could stumble and trip up at any time but hopefully we can avoid that in any major way ! ..

I will also start by discussing the Principle of Work Energy Equivalence ( or Work Energy Theorem ) - and hopefully show thru sims that Work Done is NOT ALWAYS EQUAL to Kinetic Energy in a mechanical system .. that will be a good start ..

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

P.S. slow and steady eh, no rush .. gives everybody time to digest things presented, tho no promises that the building blocks and deductions to my theory will be entirely rational and logical ( from some points of view ), self-evident, or even easy to swallow - some of the sims I am yet to build will take quite a bit of working-up ( time and effort ), and double checking, before they are fit to be included for discussion ..

[justsomeone]

Looking forward to it Fletcher. I hope that I will be able to view the Sims. Quite often, I cannot.

[Fletcher]

... Initially it might seem a bit mundane and tedious js ( entry level - bear with it ) - but imo a slow start is essential for shaping context and understanding to launch from - marrying up basic relationships of forces, momentum, and kinetic energy etc in the coherent Physics system that always delivers symmetry etc ( I am ultimately looking to workaround that symmetry constraint ) .. where I think it is worth it I will include the sim file ( WM2D ) as an attachment and an animation of the sim in action embedded in the text as a visual aid for those without a sim - I expect others to check out what I put thru its paces in other programs like Algodoo etc as a cross-checking and verification exercise .. over the years 'rubbish in -> rubbish out' has often been the catch-cry from non-sim users - not if we all have a crack at it and their behaviour is robust across most platforms ..

Later ..

[Fletcher]

Wx's fine and balmy - so quickly before starting today's demolition ..

** We all know of the Laws of Thermodynamics and the Conservation Laws ( based on Newton's 3 Laws ) - these wrap around all our machines and mechanics i.e. Classical Physics and Mechanics ..

The Conservation Laws deal with Conservation of Momentum ( a vector i.e. magnitude and direction ), Conservation of Angular Momentum ( a vector ), and Conservation of Energy ( a scalar i.e. magnitude only ) ..

** Occasionally a discussion arises about what is most the most fundamental Law - imo it is Conservation of Momentum p = m.v over Conservation of Kinetic Energy ( KE = 1/2.m.v^2 ) - an object in motion has both p and KE, tho they are different beasts with different units - nevertheless if we know an objects mass and either its m.v or its KE we can derive the other ..

>> Let's start with a vanilla example well known to us all - no need for sims and animations .. assume no frictions for the exercises ..

An object with mass is free to move in a gravity field ( i.e. field of potential / gradient ) ..

Newton says that a force = mass x acceleration ( n.b. a force just pushes or pulls something ) - so any object will have mass and be subject to an acceleration 'g' resulting in a 'weight force' - this acts vertically and is path independent - so if we know what vertical height it loses as it "falls" ( or slides on a ramp for example ) we can calculate both its mv and its KE at any vertical height ( h ) - if we know the height lost we can rearrange the KE formula to find it velocity etc => v = sqrt ( 2.g.h ) m/s - conversely if we know the height lost and the mass we can calculate the GPE lost as m.g.h in Joules .. it's a completely coherent system of exchange and substitutions ( ** assuming no energy or mv losses to frictions etc ) .. [ also I'm using constant forces examples to simplify and avoid calculus ] ..

Inching forward .. formulas and deriving math expressions by rearrangement and substitution ..

Newton's 2nd Law -> f ( Newtons N ) = m.a => f = m x dv/dt => f x dt = m x dv => f.t = m.v ( n.b. an 'Impulse' is a force applied for a time i.e. f.t N/s ) .. IOW's => Impulse Given = Momentum Gained ..

** .. Mainstream science says that Work equals Kinetic Energy .. this is the prime tenet of the Work Energy Theorem .. **

W = f x d => W = f x v x dt => W = m.a x v.dt => W = m.a x v.dt => m x dv/dt x v.dt :. W = 1/2.m.v^2 Nm = KE J ..

If we know the KE at any vertical height lost we can calculate the GPE lost => W = f x dh => W = m.a x dh => W = mgh = GPE ..

** We can see that this has complete symmetry and coherency .. Work Done ( f.d in Nm) in a gravity field EQUALS Kinetic Energy gained ( 1/2.m.v^2 in J = mgh lost in J ) ..

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

Back to work of a different kind ..

[thx4]

Salut Fletcher, bon courage pour le travail d'un autre genre.

Contrairement a ce que tu penses je ne pense pas qu'il y ait de guerre entre les avec et les non sim, ou je n'ai pas compris, c'est simplement du bon sens.

Je suis programmeur de métier (maintenant en retraite), tous les simulateurs de l'univers ne te donneront jamais la moindre réponses (anomalies de physique), il n'y en a pas...
Il est évident que visuellement c'est pratique et assez facile à utiliser, mais un simple tableur Excel ferait la même chose, et surement mieux puisque tu pourrais comparer plusieurs feuilles entres elles à l'instant T, et LÀ on pourrait voir que la conjugaison de certaine feuille entres elles pourraient faire apparaitre quelque chose.
B n'avait pas excel, mais je suis convaincu que ce qu'il a vu n'est pas loin de ce que je d'écris." Deux systèmes conjugués."

RDV dans DIX ans lol.

Hi Fletcher, good luck with another kind of work.

Contrary to what you think, I don't think there's a war between sims and non-sims, or I didn't understand, it's just common sense.

I'm a programmer by trade (now retired), and all the simulators in the universe will never give you the slightest answer (physics anomalies). There just aren't any...
It's obvious that it's practical and easy to use, but a simple Excel spreadsheet would do the same thing, and probably better since you could compare several sheets with each other at a given time, and then you'd be able to see that the conjugation of certain sheets with each other might reveal something.
B didn't have Excel, but I'm convinced that what he saw isn't far from what I'm writing. ‘Two systems combined.’

See you in ten years, lol.

[Sam Peppiatt]

Fletcher,
One proven way to restore GPE,( with real wheels), with real weights made of real iron. Is with the so called Ring & Rollers. What's more it, the raising and falling of the GPE, occurs simultaneously and continuously. No resetting involved.

Unfortunately, on this forum they are considered unacceptable. I know, I will regret making this post; for you will find a way to denigrate every thing I say------------------------Sam

[Tarsier79]

One proven way to restore GPE,( with real wheels), with real weights made of real iron. Is with the so called Ring & Rollers.

Im not sure proven is the right word.

nfortunately, on this forum they are considered unacceptable. I know, I will regret making this post; for you will find a way to denigrate every thing I say

Sam, I don't think anyone denigrates everything you say. Your views are just as valid as anyone elses here.Your persistence with this mechanism does remind me of Murilo and his "Avalanche Drive". He was convinced it would word regardless of any evidence presented otherwise.

My only advice would be for you to take a step back and try take a neutral view of the ring and rollers. Use scientific method to determine why it does or does not act like you want it to, or do what you want it to.

Hi Fletcher. Looking forward to any different viewpoints you might shed some light on. The LOL is a frustrating persistence.

[Fletcher]

Hi Fletcher, good luck with another kind of work.

Thanks - it will take another 6 weeks or so to complete working at it every day, if the weather cooperates - I'm not exactly a jeune poulet anymore lol ..

Contrary to what you think, I don't think there's a war between sims and non-sims, or I didn't understand, it's just common sense.

Agreed - sims are just a handy tool to use - they don't replace your brain, your logic, or your knowledge and common sense - but they can visually and quickly present and predict with some accuracy the physics and math involved for real-world interactions to compare against your mind-sim - which then can be updated or recalibrated with the new information and understanding if required ..

I'm a programmer by trade (now retired), and all the simulators in the universe will never give you the slightest answer (physics anomalies). There just aren't any...

" There aren't any " - that remains to be seen early in this thread, but they may not be in a form you would/could or have thought of - I don't dismiss sims quite so fast ..

It's obvious that it's practical and easy to use, but a simple Excel spreadsheet would do the same thing, and probably better since you could compare several sheets with each other at a given time, and then you'd be able to see that the conjugation of certain sheets with each other might reveal something.

Funnily enough that's exactly how I used to do it before I was introduced to the power and flexibility of kinematic sims some years ago now - formerly building complex excel spreadsheets and linking them etc etc, looking for the break in the symmetry to exploit, as B. must have done, but without spreadsheets lol - I still use them from time to time to further interrogate things if I feel the need for a second opinion, but sims are faster ..

.. IF I show something "interesting" with the sims then perhaps you could dust off your excel spreadsheet prowess and analyze it to prove the "interesting" "anomaly" can or can't raise GPE without using Law of Levers per se ? ..

B didn't have Excel, but I'm convinced that what he saw isn't far from what I'm writing. ‘Two systems combined.’

We can agree that it is likely two systems combined imo - however I am not thinking of 2 x non-runner OOB systems being combined as you do - for me its a Prime Mover entity plus an OOB system where the Prime Mover replenishes the GPE of the OOB system and then the OOB system reboots the Prime Mover to full motion, and on and on ..

See you in ten years, lol.

Maybe, but I hope we have solved it way before then, and are by then discussing not how it might be done, but how to maximize its energy density and performance etc lol ..

If I'm heading to a dead end it will be revealed soon enough - just keep the spreadsheets handy and an open mind till then ;7) ..

[Fletcher]

Hi Fletcher. Looking forward to any different viewpoints you might shed some light on. The LOL is a frustrating persistence.

Hey T .. good luck with the move up to Roxy - yes, LOLs is exactly a demonstration of the Work Energy Theorem in operation - i.e. put some Work ( f x d ) in and get the exact same energy ( 1/2 m v^2 ) out ( paraphrased ) .. n.b. " ENERGY is capacity to do WORK " says it all ..

If we can break that substitution " Work-Energy Equivalence " cycle, that all simple machines use to do Work, then we might have a new discounted way to do " Work " to reset GPE in an OOB runner imo ..

[Sam Peppiatt]

Tarsier,
I found a way to lift weights up with out using levers, if you don't approve of that, fine with me. If you are suggesting I'm a f'reqing idiot for posting it, you wont get any argument from-------------Sam

[Tarsier79]

I found a way to lift weights up with out using levers

Yes. It still conforms to the law of levers though, just like pulleys and hydrostatic pressure devices etc.

Sam I don't believe you are an idiot, nor would I imply it. Although I was sometimes frustrated with Murillo, I am pretty sure I never called him an idiot either. I understand that you are heavily invested in your mechanism, and that is why I suggested taking a step back and design some objective tests to prove its merits and flaws....

[Sam Peppiatt]

Tarsier79,
First off thanks for your reply. Most won't even talk to me. You're right the LAW or basic laws don't change any. Let me back up a little bit--------------- I have two rings, OK? One at say 9;00 and the other at 3;00. Both are at an equal distance from the axle. They are 11.5 inches in diameter. The rollers are 8 inches in diameter and 1/2 inch thick and weight 8 pounds each,(I have yet to find a way to displace them).

They are held / controlled by a crank shaft with a small drag link and are connected together by a cross-bar. This just means that they can roll around freely when I give the wheel a spin. Which is no small accomplishment! That's it; no levers no pulleys. They are perfectly balanced.

It's not complicated! Eight pounds is lifted upward as eight pounds falls. One counter balances the other. It's just as Bessler described it. "they gravitate to the center and climb back up". If you don't mind his bull shit way of saying things.

You seam to imply over and over again that I'm all fucked up,( if you will for give my French). So, explain it to me where have I gone wrong. What is it that I'm doing so bloody wrong-----------------Sam

[daxwc]

My opinion Sam for what it is worth :) No I am not trying to kick your baby just trying to understand it as it does appear in MT.


From what you’ve described Sam, it sounds like the crank and drag link are indeed playing a crucial role in the system. They might be providing the leverage needed to move the rollers, even if it doesn’t seem like a traditional lever or pulley system. This leverage could be why the system appears balanced and why the weights are able to move as they do. If the concept relies on leverage, there could indeed be a “dead spot” or a point where the system loses its mechanical advantage. This typically happens when the leverage provided by the crank and drag link is not sufficient to overcome the forces acting on the system, such as gravity or friction. I mean at some point the mass of the crank and draglink themselves become involved.

So does the mechanism stall in the same spot every time? I know it has been SIM but have physical models been built? Although I usually read your threads I can’t remember what has all happened.

[Sam Peppiatt]

daxwc,
No, kick it all you want, I do. First off I'm pretty sure it's not on MT or if it is I must be blind as a bat. The reason that it doesn't run is because I haven't found a way to shift the roller(s) to one side or the other. In this regard the rollers are no different than any other weight. If they shift in on the up side and out on the down side, the wheel will turn.

A wheel is a little bit like a rotating lever. The weights have to slide in on the up side and out on the down side. But, the wheel can only turn so far, then you have to start over / reset them, right? Which can't be done as far as I know. They can't be lifted back up.

What has to happen is; the process needs to be continuous, to avoid the problems with levers. A work around if you will. This is what the Ring & Rollers bring to the table. They have the inherent, I claim unique ability, to shift in and out continuously and give the wheel continuous torque, independent of the phase. And, and they lift them selves back up automatically.

However, trying to find a way to displace the rollers has proven to be very difficult, maybe impossible. Maybe all of you are right, what do I know----------------------Sam

ETA I thought Fletcher would be giving me hell by now. Does that mean I'm off the hook?

[Tarsier79]

Sam, I think we should continue your conversation out of Fletchers Thread. He has something he is working towards and the R&R seems like an off topic distraction.