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

[johannesbender]

@Fletcher

In the image on the bottom , we can move the top point of the rod/string which the weight is hanging on in a lateral direction , or we can move the inclined plane a lateral direction , or we can move the weight a lateral direction , there will be a force over lateral distance in and a height out as expected , except your weight example would travel a bit of a curved path .

What would be the advantage over an inclined plane , or are you showcasing some other facet ?

[Fletcher]

What would be the advantage over an inclined plane , or are you showcasing some other facet ?

Mornin jb ..

What you are showing in the bottom drawing is the use of a hanging pendulum and an incline plane ( ramp ) - and suggesting a couple of ideal thought experiments to compare against the swinger leg 1 accelerating scenario ..

1. fixed ramp -> push ( constant force ) the pendulum pivot horizontally a set distance, and the pend bob will slide/drag up the ramp gaining KE and PE - the bob momentum will increase, total system momentum will be conserved because the ramp will push equally on the bob and the earth it is attached to etc , wrt WEEP -> WD ( f x d ) = KE + PE at any horizontal distance the pivot has moved ..

2. fixed pivot -> push ( constant force ) the ramp horizontally a set distance beneath the pend bob - the ramp will gain KE and the bob will gain PE - ramp momentum will increase, total system momentum will be conserved as above , wrt WEEP -> WD ( f x d ) = KE + PE at any horizontal distance ..

* An incline plane is a simple machine, and subject to the Law of Levers ( MA ), whether the bob moves up the ramp or the ramp moves beneath the bob -> WD ( f x d 'energy expended' ) will always equal KE + PE gained ( 'capacity to do Work' ) ..

** In previous sims in this thread I showed horizontal translations ( no gaining or losing GPE ) with carts pulling trailers attached by a slack rope - the result was that system momentum was conserved but KE was not i.e. WD ( f x d ) > KE, by a disturbing margin .. so we postulated if we could "disappear" KE in one scenario then would it be possible to physically reverse that outcome i.e. Energy ( KE + PE ) > WD ( f x d ) .. and if it was possible potentially could give an advantage over simple machines of a discounted energy/WD cost of lifting restoring weights height in an OOB wheel ..

[Roxaway59]

Fletcher for what ever its worth here is my take on what you are showing.

First of all if you or anyone else here shows a different approach to lifting weights that might be useful on a wheel I am all for it.

We are all use to and maybe even tired of the typical levering of weights.

Does your approach do it for free? I am not at all sure but that does not have to matter.
Ultimately its only the maths or getting it to work on a real wheel that’s going to prove that.

Besslers wheel definitely wasted a certain amount of energy in its operation therefore some of its actions did not happen for free but over all the positives far outweighed the negatives by an in your face way.

I looked at your experiment this way.

The bottom cart is wasting more energy than the top one.

Most basic forms of wasted energy come in the form of heat so the bottom cart would end up being slightly hotter than the top.

All forms of energy count including heat but heat is difficult to transform back into a form of energy we can use.

The top one is saving some of its energy by lifting weights up.

In the real world the heat would be coming from two main areas.

The sliding of the cart down the track and the pressure points on the cart where the force is applied.

Of course I cant prove any of what I am saying and I realise that this kind of thinking is what we are trained to think.

Having said that lets take a hypothetical situation.

Lets say that in the real world I manage to take virtually all resistance from the track.

I then make it so there is no heat (or very little) generated where pressure is applied by the force used so it is more like your simulation.

The weights would still swing and there would be less reason to blame it on heat.

Interesting how heat is very often used as a way of sweeping stuff under the carpet maybe?

That’s my take on it and Copilot can certainly talk rubbish under certain circumstances.

I once had a conversation with it on one of my subjects where it had to keep backtracking and apologising to me time and again for giving wrong or illogical information.

I only wish I had saved the conversation. It clearly only gives information it is programmed to give so people should be careful when using it.

There are two things that I like about the action of your sim and one that I think needs changing.

I like the idea of the pendulums because it falls in line with a lot of Bessler clues and with nature.

I like the idea of the two pendulums working together so that one deals with one half of the swing caused by one force and the other deals with another part of the swing dealing with the other force.

I think the force really needs to be applied via a spring on a real machine though so does this simulation work just as well that way?

I think a real experiment approach would work best with the mechanism parallel to the axle similar to my design of wheel.

I look forward to seeing how this progresses.

Graham

[johannesbender]

What would be the advantage over an inclined plane , or are you showcasing some other facet ?

Mornin jb ..

What you are showing in the bottom drawing is the use of a hanging pendulum and an incline plane ( ramp ) - and suggesting a couple of ideal thought experiments to compare against the swinger leg 1 accelerating scenario ..

1. fixed ramp -> push ( constant force ) the pendulum pivot horizontally a set distance, and the pend bob will slide/drag up the ramp gaining KE and PE - the bob momentum will increase, total system momentum will be conserved because the ramp will push equally on the bob and the earth it is attached to etc , wrt WEEP -> WD ( f x d ) = KE + PE at any horizontal distance the pivot has moved ..

2. fixed pivot -> push ( constant force ) the ramp horizontally a set distance beneath the pend bob - the ramp will gain KE and the bob will gain PE - ramp momentum will increase, total system momentum will be conserved as above , wrt WEEP -> WD ( f x d ) = KE + PE at any horizontal distance ..

* An incline plane is a simple machine, and subject to the Law of Levers ( MA ), whether the bob moves up the ramp or the ramp moves beneath the bob -> WD ( f x d 'energy expended' ) will always equal KE + PE gained ( 'capacity to do Work' ) ..

** In previous sims in this thread I showed horizontal translations ( no gaining or losing GPE ) with carts pulling trailers attached by a slack rope - the result was that system momentum was conserved but KE was not i.e. WD ( f x d ) > KE, by a disturbing margin .. so we postulated if we could "disappear" KE in one scenario then would it be possible to physically reverse that outcome i.e. Energy ( KE + PE ) > WD ( f x d ) .. and if it was possible potentially could give an advantage over simple machines of a discounted energy/WD cost of lifting restoring weights height in an OOB wheel ..

Yes i understand the discrepancy you show , where they do not match up WD > KE and KE < WD instead of WD = KE and KE = WD , currently it shows a missing energy and not a surplus if i am still following what you say (in red).