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).

[Fletcher]

Thanks guys for your contributions - I hope things will energy-wise become more clear for you/us when I get around to the spreadsheet analysis all in one place - I started it yesterday and hopefully will get it finished and tidied up over the weekend - much more pressing issues to take care of than a spreadsheet atm ..

I am of course building a picture brush stroke by brush stroke - I have to carefully layer it like this to build the ground work ..

The ground work will lead to my OOB mechanism and my Prime Mover that I believe together could be cause for optimism for a basic prototype runner ..

[Fletcher]

... 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? ...

Hi Graham .. I know we have discussed this previously but here goes - springs store energy ( they do not store momentum ) as elastic potential energy ( EPE ), and release that EPE as KE - therefore the swinger cart would not show any advantage over the control cart - WEEP would be consistent ..

The important distinction with my sims is that linear "momentum" is given to the carts, and then taken away again from the carts - i.e.1. after the transaction there is no NET momentum change in the carts ( starting and ending velocity is the same before and after ) i.e.2. zero sum linear momentum change .. however we have raised the PE in the swinger cart having subjected it to a Net zero momentum transaction ..

ETA .. .. and whilst the net transactional momentum change is zero i.e. if it started with 0.0 m/s velocity or 10.0 m/s velocity it would still have the same velocities before and after > but we would have gained swinger GPE, morphing into torque - rinse and repeat .. the theory is the torque gained is the turning force that accelerates the wheel and increases the wheel rpm and angular momentum/RKE ..

[Roxaway59]

What I'm thinking is what ever force is used on a practical machine it cant be a blunt knocking force but more an abrupt cushioned force like a stiff spring.

Graham

[Fletcher]

What I'm thinking is what ever force is used on a practical machine it can't be a blunt knocking force but more an abrupt cushioned force like a stiff spring.

Graham

The Draschwitz one-way was provided with felt coverings to cushion and quieten noises, the Merseburg two-way was "bald" with no cushioning and made a racket by comparison .. I guess that 'cushioning effect' could have been with small stiff spring systems - sounds like felt did the same job but presumably quickly wore out - so in the M wheel he just forgot about it ..

For me I often reflect that for B. in his era he was a skilled mechanic and could repair clocks, and organs - he and his contemporaries like Wagner knew all about Law of Levers ( MA ) - they also only knew about momentum, angular momentum, force, and torque - and obviously about the importance of raising weights to get that torque for a runner .. they knew nothing of Energy per se, KE, PE, or WEEP .. only about momentum in terms of a body's motion and resistance to change in motion ..

[thx4]

@Fletcher, je ne pense pas que B connaissait la loi des leviers et pour l'énergie il ne se posait même pas la question. Je pense qu'il avait compris que tout tombe, et que pour remonter il faut que cela ne pèse rien... (proto en cours, mais je flémarde, et il fait 5 degrés dans mon garage).
Lorsque que l'énergie cinétique et consommée, il reste environ ¼ d'énergie cinétique à EXPLOITER, en générale on l'observe mais on ne l'exploite pas, car l'instant pour le faire ne saute pas aux yeux.
Je suis impatient de voir ton proto. Je sens que l'on s'approche d'un dénouement...
Je te souhaite le meilleur pour la suite.

@Fletcher, I don't think B knew the law of levers, and for energy he didn't even ask the question. I think he understood that everything falls, and in order to rise it has to weigh nothing... (proto in progress, but I'm fleming, and it's 5 degrees in my garage). When the kinetic energy is consumed, there's about ¼ of kinetic energy left to EXPLOIT, which is usually observed but not exploited, because the moment to do so isn't obvious. I can't wait to see your proto. I feel we're getting close to a conclusion... I wish you all the best for the future.

[Kattla]

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.

For my see-saws , i used what i call well behaved weights. Meaning, they only do work when needed, and when not needed, they rest on the ground.
Seems simple enough.
But if the ones not in use was still part of the system, it would require a lot more energy to shift the Centre of Mass to the
other side of the pivot.

Edit: Another bonus with see-saws , you only need the energy to push it down, but as one end goes down, the other goes up. Very good
for hydrostatics, which also depends on the height difference of water.

Besides, it is a fairly simple concept. Not saying it is perfect, nor do i claim my seesaws are runners. Maybe the hydrostatic one could be a walker
if i put some more effort into it, since it is the only one that have done one flip (though it required manual locking of the lifting weight).
Walker , as in it would require someone to lock/unlock the lifter weight , like the first steam engine (actually atmospheric engine) also needed an
operator.

I show the drawing of them both, maybe it can help inspire someone to find a way to do this with a wheel. Just rotating the image of the rollersaw
90 degrees clockwise gave me some ideas, not sure if they work though.

Wanted something fun and "new"? Try balanced hydrostatic. :)

[Fletcher]

As promised ( completed over the weekend ) .. here is my spreadsheet analysis of the previous Control Cart verses the Swinger Cart sims ..

Recap .. Both carts are given a rapid acceleration followed by a rapid deceleration in the form of equal and opposite impulses - i.e. a positive change in momentum followed by an equal negative change in momentum so that after the transaction the cart is at its original momentum and linear KE state .. n.b. the greater the acceleration and deceleration given the higher will the pendulums swing gaining greater PE ..

I call this the "pump and dump" cycle - with a view to reoccurring acceleration and braking cycles in a wheel format where the swinger cart pends gain PE and discharge it as torque to the wheel carcass to be ready to go again, whilst the control cart does not for the same inputs ..

** In my next post I will explain the analysis conclusions ..

Without any further ado ..

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



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



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

[Fletcher]

The Control Cart with fixed pendulum attachments wrt. pump and dump cycle ..

Leg 1 .. an impulse is applied to the cart body ( starting with zero KE and mv ) and rapidly accelerates it to the left horizontally a distance of 0.417 meters achieving 1.667 m/s velocity - the cart and pends gain Translational KE ( KEt ) of 4.167 Joules ( J ) - Total Energy is the KEt which is 4.167 J - Total Work Done ( WD ) is 4.167 J - KE = WD .. Work Energy Equivalence Principle ( WEEP ) is consistent ..

Leg 2 .. an equal and opposite impulse is immediately applied to the cart body and rapidly decelerates it from its current 1.667 m/s velocity back down to starting zero velocity - the applied reverse impulse 'washes-off' the previous velocity gained, and the KEt and mv gained, back down to zero - the cart comes to a stop after traveling a further 0.417 meters horizontal distance - WD was 4.167 J to wash-off the KEt of 4.167 J and its mv back to zero ( no motion ) - WD = KE .. WEEP is consistent ..

Legs 1 + 2 summary .. equal and opposite impulses were sequentially applied to the cart body from a standing start - the cart was accelerated and traveled 0.417 m at the end of the first impulse ( leg 1 ) - thereafter it was decelerated and traveled a further 0.417 m to come to a complete stop at the end of the reverse second impulse ( leg 2 ) - total distance the cart was moved is 2 x 0.417 m = 0.834 m - Total WD is 2 x 4.167 J ( N.m ) = 8.334 J - Total KE gained and then washed-off again is 2 x 4.167 J = 8.334 J - WD = KE <=> KE = WD .. WEEP is consistent ..

** There is nothing in the analysis that would surprise anyone - Classical Physics is unchallenged for now ..

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

[Fletcher]

The "Swinger" Cart with pivoted pendulum attachments wrt. pump and dump cycle ..

Leg 1 .. an impulse is applied to the standing cart body and rapidly accelerates it to the left horizontally a distance of 0.471 ( greater than the Control ) meters achieving 1.667 m/s velocity - the cart and pends gain KEt of 4.167 J - the rhs red pendulum swings upwards ( due inertial lag ) gaining 0.517 J GPE ( mgh ) - Total Energy is KEt plus GPE which is 4.167 J + 0.517 J = 4.684 J - Total WD is 4.706 J -> for all intents and purposes KE + PE ( aka Energy ) = WD ( small discrepancy in totals due to sim accuracy setting i.e. discreet time steps ) .. WEEP IS consistent for Leg 1 ..

Leg 2 .. an equal and opposite impulse is immediately applied to the cart body and rapidly decelerates it from its current 1.667 m/s velocity back down to starting zero velocity - the applied reverse impulse 'washes-off' the previous velocity gained, and the KEt and mv gained, back down to zero - the cart comes to a stop after traveling only a further 0.363 meters horizontal distance - the lhs blue pendulum swings upwards ( due inertial lag ) gaining 0.517 J GPE ( mgh ) - Total Energy is KEt plus GPE which is 4.167 J + 0.517 J = 4.684 J - WD was 3.639 J to wash-off the KEt of 4.167 J and its mv back to zero ( no motion ) -> WD =/= KE .. WEEP is NOT consistent for leg 2 ..

Legs 1 + 2 summary .. equal and opposite impulses were sequentially applied to the cart body from a standing start - the cart was accelerated and traveled 0.471 m at the end of the first impulse ( leg 1 ) - thereafter it was decelerated and traveled a further 0.363 m to come to a complete stop at the end of the reverse second impulse ( leg 2 ) - total distance the cart was moved is 0.471 m + 0.363 m = 0.834 m ( same as the Control ) - Total WD is 4.706 J ( N.m ) + 3.639 J ( N.m ) = 8.335 J - Total KE gained and then washed-off again is 2 x 4.167 J = 8.334 J - Total pendulum GPE gained and remaining is 2 x 0.517 J = 1.023 J mgh - Therefore Total E => KEt 8.334 J + GPE 1.023 J = 9.368 J for WD = 8.345 J -> WD =/= KE .. WEEP is Not consistent over the summed "pump and dump" cycle .. leg 1 is, leg 2 is not ..

* Energy for Legs 1 + 2 is 9.368 J, WD is 8.345 -> 9.368 J minus 8.345 J = 1.023 J GPE ( gained and remaining after the net zero horizontal impulse transactions ) - 1.023 J is approx. 12.26% of the WD on the system ..

** WEEP, as I know it, is now under a serious cloud in some experimental circumstances, imo ..

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



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

[daxwc]

Well the WD2 SIM doesn’t take in account for rotation of the earth so… It must be inertia energy loss or just a loss due to vector calculation?

[johannesbender]

@Fletcher well you know the Force and the Distance for WD , so for example the F*D in the previous simpler sim experiments is not an unknown , perhaps you should devise a type of sim to compare to a real world experiment .