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

[Fletcher]

@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 .

Hey jb .. we can do better than that - no need for another sim experiment with recorded metrics like all mine - go straight to a simple real world experiment and see for yourself ..

Lightly hold a ruler at one end by your finger tips so it hangs down like a pendulum - position your fist close in by your shoulder and count down from 3 , 2 , 1 , lift off - rapidly shoot your hand straight outwards horizontally and perpendicular to your body until your arm is fully extended - that is the momentum pump and dump analogue - watch the ruler swing upwards and backwards relative to your accelerating fist as your hand shoots out, gaining GPE, and then when the hand is decelerated near full arm extension watch the ruler pendulum swing downwards and forwards of your hand and raise its GPE again .. repeat trying different amounts of impulse - slow and steady, fast and hard etc, and note how high the ruler swings in each leg - more force, less time, higher swing .. ( or alternatively put your hand out at arms length in front of you at shoulder height and accelerate and decelerate across your body in a short arc ) ..

Then imagine that the ruler is 2 pivoted pendulums with one-way bearings which lock in opposite directions - the one-way bearings ( or ratchet and pawls ) allow one direction rotation but not the other - imagine the torque of each one-way pendulum trying to rotate your finger tips at the raised locked oblique position ..

Should take about 5 minutes to put together and run the experiment, and draw some preliminary conclusions subject to further investigation at great expense ;7)

...........

[Fletcher]

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?

Hey dax .. real or sim, I try to look thru the lens of root causes and effects ..

* Work Done is a scalar quantity. n.b. ( -> shows direction ) ..

This is because Work is defined as the dot product of force ( F-> ) and displacement ( d-> ) ..

W = F-> x d-> = F d cos⁡θ

cos⁡θ is the angle between the force and displacement vectors. The result of a dot product is always a scalar, and Work does not have a direction. It only has magnitude, measured in joules (J) in the SI system.

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

You are quite right dax .. the swingers are just analogues for hanging pendulums with one-way bearings ( remember me banging on about MT51 ratchet and pawl overkill ) - that if given a momentum change and back will raise their GPE ( at a discount Work cost imo ) and give OOB torque - fwiw they would be an elegant OOB system don't you think ..

But to get that important momentum "micro pump and dump cycle" we obviously need a 'Prime Mover' structure to set the one-way pendulums into OOB torque positions to have a chance of continuous rotation of a runner - and it is the all-important Prime Mover that imo takes a very small amount of the earths rotation and wobble momentum and repurposes via the OOB system as runner Work output - this by necessity being a runner of two parts, which are in a positive feedback loop - the Prime Mover micro pumps and dumps and sets the one-way OOB pends, and the one-way pends torque and rotate the wheel from "excess weight" - which accelerates the wheel and then maintains its rpm ..

Should be done by lunch time eh ;7)

[Fletcher]

As an example of what I'm describing here is an indicative arrangement of half a runner as I see it i.e. the OOB one-way pendulums half .. see attachments ..

It is my opinion that the circle of one-way pends were located at a much closer radius than this illustrative pic shows - based on what Wagner said about the external portions being absent of weights and confirmed by Bessler in AP n.b. at closer radius they are less effected by Cf's imo ..

** And I hear someone ask, then why did B. laud the virtues and good points of so many of the different MT's, and particularly MT's 44 and 48 ?

My Answer .. because they all have torque symmetry ironically i.e. equal positive and negative torques - if they had no frictions or dissipative energy losses at all, once rotating they would continue rotating, but they could not accelerate - in the real world the frictions quickly grind it to a stop - iow's if his imo 2 part runner is bolted to one of these MT's, these MT's assist the Prime Mover to periodically accelerate and brake the wheel precisely because of their torque symmetry and friction braking ..

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

As for the Prime Mover which I will flesh out at a later time - it's no secret that I think his 'pump and dump' structure was initially an external pendulum connected via a crank ( as per the GB and DT engravings etc ) in his very first prototype runner which was not a public wheel .. pendulums can act like flywheels and store and release momentum !

Here is a quote in Bessler's AP ( from John Collins translation ) about fly-wheels which could well be relevant .. B. replying to Wagner ..

... But, fly-wheels are not to be sniffed at! Though anyone who sets about the task of bringing a Mobile to glorious completion with such devices, is not on the right track at all. For external wheels, weights etc. - all of this sort of stuff is not the real thing. The wheel's own inner force must come into being without external momentum being applied by such devices. It must, simply put, just revolve, without being wound-up, through the principle of "excess weight", as I describe in Part I.

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

[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 .

Hey jb .. we can do better than that - no need for another sim experiment with recorded metrics like all mine - go straight to a simple real world experiment and see for yourself ..

Lightly hold a ruler at one end by your finger tips so it hangs down like a pendulum - position your fist close in by your shoulder and count down from 3 , 2 , 1 , lift off - rapidly shoot your hand straight outwards horizontally and perpendicular to your body until your arm is fully extended - that is the momentum pump and dump analogue - watch the ruler swing upwards and backwards relative to your accelerating fist as your hand shoots out, gaining GPE, and then when the hand is decelerated near full arm extension watch the ruler pendulum swing downwards and forwards of your hand and raise its GPE again .. repeat trying different amounts of impulse - slow and steady, fast and hard etc, and note how high the ruler swings in each leg - more force, less time, higher swing .. ( or alternatively put your hand out at arms length in front of you at shoulder height and accelerate and decelerate across your body in a short arc ) ..

Then imagine that the ruler is 2 pivoted pendulums with one-way bearings which lock in opposite directions - the one-way bearings ( or ratchet and pawls ) allow one direction rotation but not the other - imagine the torque of each one-way pendulum trying to rotate your finger tips at the raised locked oblique position ..

Should take about 5 minutes to put together and run the experiment, and draw some preliminary conclusions subject to further investigation at great expense ;7)

...........

Yes that should follow your example as you say , and its simple too , what i was thinking since the experimenter would know the distance by measurement and the weights weight and the height by measurement , then all a person needs to conclude i guess should be a method of realiable force of a known value , so if such an experiment shows similar results for less work then you have imperical data , okay i get it takes less force going sidewards than up against gravity and i know it takes less energy when theres no losses but irrispective the outcome should supposedly hold to WEEP but not according to your analasys , if it holds in real world it would be mind blowing.

[daxwc]

I understand what you are trying to say Fletcher. I am saying the SIM has to choose between “conservation of energy” and “conservation of momentum” While both principles are fundamental, the vector nature of momentum and the relative simplicity of tracking it in a system with moving parts and different frames of reference can make it easier to analyze compared to the more comprehensive accounting required for energy conservation.

Maybe I am wrong. You think energy calculations properly take in frame of reference changes in a moving pendulum.

[Fletcher]

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

... Yes that should follow your example as you say , and its simple too , what i was thinking since the experimenter would know the distance by measurement and the weights weight and the height by measurement , then all a person needs to conclude i guess should be a method of reliable force of a known value , so if such an experiment shows similar results for less work then you have empirical data , okay i get it takes less force going sidewards than up against gravity and i know it takes less energy when there's no losses but irrespective the outcome should supposedly hold to WEEP but not according to your analasys , if it holds in real world it would be mind blowing.

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

I understand what you are trying to say Fletcher. I am saying the SIM has to choose between “conservation of energy” and “conservation of momentum” While both principles are fundamental, the vector nature of momentum and the relative simplicity of tracking it in a system with moving parts and different frames of reference can make it easier to analyze compared to the more comprehensive accounting required for energy conservation.

Maybe I am wrong. You think energy calculations properly take in frame of reference changes in a moving pendulum.

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

Mornin jb and dax .. I will come back with more later - I've got a lot on my plate atm ..

But in short yes an empirical test would prove it outright - it would need to be well designed and thoroughly repeatable ( scientific method ) - * theories and hypothesis are assumed to be false until proven with empirical evidence * - and we would need a reliable source of force as you say jb to give the body momentum etc - having anticipated that before, I have some old sims where the impulse/momentum is given and taken away again by an actuator - I'll drag them out and update them for you when I can - fwiw an actuator in real-world and also in sim-world is anchored to the background as opposed to a "floating" force applied as per my sims presentations - but the sims treat the moving force arrow as tho it originated from a earth bound contact point i.e. wrt. Newtons Laws of action and equal and opposite reaction - meaning that the force pushes the object and also the pushes the earth it is connected to - it does this thru coding of the math because my laptop screen doesn't actually move the opposite direction ;7) - it's why ultimately to explain an self-moving wheel I had to postulate that the earth was sacrificing a little momentum, and balance Newton's books ..

Anyways .. fwiw - thousands of people for hundreds if not thousands of years have been going to the same rock and looking under it - then going back to the same rock and looking under it again, and again, and again, and again - even B. went to the same rock, then one day he looked under a different rock, and found success .. I wasn't exempt from that for too many years to count ..

So I devised a set of sim experiments to book-end the problem as I saw it .. to test 2 hypothesis at each end of a spectrum ..

1. .. could I destroy Energy ? .. and if that was possible, the antithesis, and what would it take ..

2. .. could I create Energy ? .. within the structure of Newton' Laws and Classical Physics ..

When I find my old sims I will once again revisit conserving momentum and "disappearing" Energy to destroy WEEP ( and Chat GPT / CoPilot etc ) - and if we can make it disappear we can perhaps do the opposite of that when we need it for a self-running wheel ..

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

In the meantime for your entertainment ( no expense spared ) ..

** Having seen the inside of the Merseburg two-way wheel Karl is recorded as saying that it was very simple to understand and build ( the more complex two-way ) - but I bet that was only if you actually saw it in action, you could hardly not connect all the dots in front of your eyes - B. said in his books that he was terrified that once he sold his wheel the purchaser would want their money back it was so simple - the takeaway is that it was simple, and easy to understand once seen ..

Here's my Gera sized one-way wheel with one-way swingers pic to show potentially how simple it just might have been sans the Prime Mover at this stage - the one-way swingers are in their positions of lifting and combined imbalance from an imagined series of net zero momentum pumping and dumping cycles to the wheel attached to earth ..

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

[Tarsier79]

I know it is in the wrong plane, but it kind of reminds me of the principle the skinner machine works off.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxIRaJlTD4Y

[daxwc]

The whole top right hand quarter of your Gera wheel will not act like that. I know from real builds there is no swing there because the pivot is moving down with the weight. So you need to add a nudge at noon. Or rethink it so the pivot is moving up with the swing.

Does it run in the SIM?