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

[Fletcher]

Comment .. B. took the care and effort to identify and include joint pivots in some of his TP woodcut toys, but not in others ..

Fletcher, It's a wonder you can see anything on that dreadful scan ;)

Hey Trev, jb, and dax .. I know we have discussed this before - I still stick to my guns for a couple of reasons ..

1. I try to watch out for confirmation bias - in toys we expect to see pivots therefore we see pivots - but in the scans we also see lots of literally " white noise " so some coincidences might occur that suggest a white point pivot .. many potential pivot sites have no white in the center etc ( are we cherry picking ? ) ..

2. the TP is a small page - even in his day he might have expected someone to study it under a light, maybe even with a magnifying glass - today we can magnify it right up in great detail and perhaps see what he could not ..

3. Pivot size - in the toys C D and E we can clearly see white pivots on a black background to his woodcut - these pivot indicators are all approximately the same size / area ( circle ) - if there were true pivots in A and B toys I would expect there to be consistency across the TP i.e. white pivots in the middle of a black background and the white pivot area to be very similar to the toys that did have true pivots - but I don't see that size relationship and many "nodes" don't have any white in them at all, except at extreme magnification ( white noise ? ) ..

[daxwc]

Everyone has to remember it is not a drawing it is a print. Who knows what the ink fills in; it can take away detail or make imaginary detail.

I don't agree "A" chain and "B" chain are the same. Just like I don't agree "C" and "D" are the same. To each his own.

PS: There is two different ratios in "C" and "D" which could represent a maximum and minimum action... I guess.

[Fletcher]

Wouldn't lengthening the swingers to achieve overbalance without bringing the weights closer be better than bringing the swingers inward?

Lengthening the swingers can increase their swing amplitude and contribute to overbalance.

There has to be a right balance between the length of the swingers and their placement within the system to optimize their motion and the overall torque generated... no? Or straight CF and RPM?

dax .. lengthening the swinger shafts has zero bearing on how high the swingers will swing to and lockout at iinm - it's all about the pump and dump impulse giving the swingers GPE - a longer shaft does not give them more GPE - if it was we would just have ludicrously lengthened swinger shafts and reap the extra torque we got and have unlimited power - even with short shafts the swinger bobs will still gain the same GPE and torque capability, and in fact that may be preferable operationally to help reduce Cf's along with being at a closer radius ..

In my next iteration Prime Mover the wheel outside circumference space is required for them ( plural ) to operate freely as they rotate with the wheel - and Wolff's observations thru the cracks would be closer to home base, imo ..

[daxwc]

Fletcher: a longer shaft does not give them more GPE.

Correct because the pivot and swinger are falling but it might give it more torque because of more overbalance.

I see what you are saying. Still there is a dance there somewhere. Bessler still increases diameter to get more power otherwise why not just increase weight of masses.

[Fletcher]

Fletcher: a longer shaft does not give them more GPE.

Correct because the pivot and swinger are falling ( not always ) but it might give it more torque because of more overbalance. More torque and overbalance comes from a more vigorous pump and dump impulse ( they can swing higher ), imo ..

I see what you are saying. Still there is a dance there somewhere.

Bessler still increases diameter to get more power otherwise why not just increase weight of masses. Because in my hypothesis here, he needs to increase the number of pump and dump cycles per wheel revolution - to do that he needs more available space for what are quite big structures - that means increasing the diameter of the wheels - if he just increased the swinger mass he has to increase the pump and dump impulse strength, and that "sweet spot" relationship has mechanical limits ( law of diminishing returns ), imo ..

[Fletcher]

... About my more advanced sim...

It's interesting, that when this system is push started, then all the swingers are instantly thrown to OOB position due to either colliding with their own stop/limiter surface or just naturally swung there. Just thinking about... That's a nice bonus to have, and could be a handy-mysterious Bessler's type of clue as well. Yeah - the limiter was a genius solution ( that you got to work without exploding the sim ) - I turn ON contact forces ( Define > Vectors ) in one of my tweaks ..

Like: "How great my weights are, they are simply just swing to their desired place by themselves when started, blah-blah". Did he ever mention something like that?

Gould - Oddities pg 107/108 .. “The internal structure of the machine is of a nature according to the laws of mechanical perpetual motion, so arranged that certain disposed weights, once in rotation, gain force from their own swinging, and must continue this movement as long as their structure does not lose its position and arrangement.


About the latch formula:

And(Body[SwingerRod].p.r > 0.1, Body[SwingerRod].v.r <= Body[Wheel].v.r + b) Very nice, and simple - I was often making mine over complex by including outputs ( metrics - hidden from view ) that the 'active when' field etc then referred back to - not always necessary as you showed .. ta ..

The 0.1 degree or radian (depends on sim settings) is a rotational position just slightly to the right from 6 o'clock. This is required to deactivate the rod element before reaching the bottom... to escape the possibility of colliding into the stop while the rod is active. That would be a disaster, a big collision, and things would stop abruptly altogether. So, if problems occur this number can be increased.
Also, mind the gap... more precisely mind the initial orientation of the swinger rod, aka how it's drew. It's assumed to be drew from top to bottom, and that's considered to be the zero position here. Ya .. good advice ..

The + b ... Was an idea, an additional tweak to control when the swingers latch compared to wheel speed. The default is 0, aka they latch when wheel speed is matched as they're swing/accelerating back into clockwise direction. Adding or subtracting a few RPMs might change this behaviour a little bit, but not recommended by default. Also you have to keep in mind which direction the wheel rotates, because plus and minus will mean different things based on rotational direction. Ta again, and good advice as usual - have a crack at my tweaked up sim ( from yours ) and see if you can trouble shoot it even more .. incremental small step advancements, if the program can handle it - I think I have it against the wall but your simple conditions give it no choice but to "Bottom Up" execute the conditions you put on it - however I think it can't be entirely worked around for much longer .. see if you agree with what I say about the " Top Down" overviews that I think it really wants to enforce, but it can't because you have left it little wiggle room atm, lol .. will get it up here today with any luck ..

[Fletcher]

Hi Greg ..

Here is the animation and sim - tweaked version of your Roberval version previous - btw it is an excellent test platform to try things out with - for this sim I got rid of the artificial horizon hanging pendulum and anchored ( fixed ) it - and changed the position slightly ( tho it doesn't matter because it is anchored and only 1 gm ) to balance with the variator around the y-axis - also changed elasticity of contacts to 1.00 so no energy wastage in contacts - made it transparent so we can see where the System COM/COG is hovering - and turned on Contact forces to show when objects collide ( my sim won't show them but they are ON ) - and added ghost stops ( grey - not activated ) opposite the stops ( red circle ) to balance the mass around the pivot .. the reason was all to see where the System COM icon was lurking , and added some outputs such as System KE and mapped it etc ..

For those watching in on the animation - the swinger back swing is limited physically by the red circle stop - the swingers can only swing to the right - - the variator is spring controlled ( * perfect springs with no dampening or energy losses - * springs store and release PE ) - the sim starts with a set amount of System KE - this waxes and wanes - when KE is down PE should be up ( net gain ) , and PE be the difference in Total E ( there are NO frictional or elasticity losses ) ..

This is why I think the program is struggling - all frictions are OFF - there should be no energy wastages - the 20 rpm start gives it about 12.5 Joules of KE and it waxes and wanes as we would expect ( see graph trends ) - the System COM / COG icon IS ALWAYS to the right of the axle vertical, therefore there is ALWAYS a positive torque - it SHOULD increase average rpm and steadily increase System KE ( * because it is always OOB ) .. but it does not because imo the program is deferring to Conservation Of Energy ( COE ) as as a Top Down program logic and code control ( i.e. gazumping ) ..

Do you see it the same way, or perhaps differently ? - feel free to tweak it as you see fit ..

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



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

[Gregory]

Hi Greg ..

Here is the animation and sim - tweaked version of your Roberval version previous - btw it is an excellent test platform to try things out with - for this sim I got rid of the artificial horizon hanging pendulum and anchored ( fixed ) it - and changed the position slightly ( tho it doesn't matter because it is anchored and only 1 gm ) to balance with the variator around the y-axis - also changed elasticity of contacts to 1.00 so no energy wastage in contacts - made it transparent so we can see where the System COM/COG is hovering - and turned on Contact forces to show when objects collide ( my sim won't show them but they are ON ) - and added ghost stops ( grey - not activated ) opposite the stops ( red circle ) to balance the mass around the pivot .. the reason was all to see where the System COM icon was lurking , and added some outputs such as System KE and mapped it etc ..

Hi Fletch,
Nice to see you started playing around with it and made your changes!
Right, the pendulum was just a big show-off, an indication that you can hide it inside the wheel body, hanging from some axle component... an artificial fixed point, kinda...

This is why I think the program is struggling - all frictions are OFF - there should be no energy wastages - the 20 rpm start gives it about 12.5 Joules of KE and it waxes and wanes as we would expect ( see graph trends ) - the System COM / COG icon IS ALWAYS to the right of the axle vertical, therefore there is ALWAYS a positive torque - it SHOULD increase average rpm and steadily increase System KE ( * because it is always OOB ) .. but it does not because imo the program is deferring to Conservation Of Energy ( COE ) as as a Top Down program logic and code control ( i.e. gazumping ) ..

Do you see it the same way, or perhaps differently ? - feel free to tweak it as you see fit ..

Well, I think... It's a great try, and performing at a good flywheel level already with much more complexity, but... I don't want to be the devil's advocate here... but wm2d might still got this right.

I see a few problems with this wheel action, or execution of things.

First, the ratchet-type action might be not as good/desirable as it looks to be.
Let me explain... Imagine a swinger just swung to around 30 or 50 degrees for example, and at that point the wheel just receives a significant pump effect. What will happen with the swinger? Hhm... Because of the speed variation influence, the swinger might again starts to float up higher on the ratchet. Might sound good at first, but this is a double edged sword... It means that the poor swinger partially becomes weightless, and in spite of being in OOB position, still it will not apply its full weight and torque component to the wheel, and loosing time on the descending side.

Imagine you have this swinger on an empty workshop table (quite an oximoron really :D)... And of course it's a frictionless table. Now, you play with that swinger on the table, pumping it by grabbing at above the pivot point... it can be swayed either to the left or right, and partially you will not feel its weight anymore if swayed enough or quickly.

Second, the speed variator at the moment is set to more or less randomly pump and dump.
Well, it's determined and cyclic, I know. But some more sophisticated sync would be useful to sway the swingers just at the right time. And perhaps something more "in a flash" movement could be useful.

Third, the weights swinging on the ascending side might cause some negative torque when they swing to the right... Very counter-intuitive, hard to see... weight oriented more into tangential alignment, pulls back with more force (inertia), plus a minor CF effect. Just hanging there simply latched and motionless might be a better solution.

So, I will try to make a different version with a more sophisticated latching logic, some time later. I'm not sure how soon...

The idea is like:
- Induce a powerful swing into OOB somewhere at 12 or 1 o'clock, and latch to wheel body there permanently, until around 5 o'clock.
- Release at 5 o'clock, and after 6, latch to the weight stop (roberval) in initial orientation, aka zero degrees position, just hanging down.
- Let it ascend to 11 o'clock, release roberval latch there...
- Tune the speed variator to create this powerful influence for the top swinger, just the right moment. Perhaps a big dump... aka how suddenly the upper/excess weight is caused to rise!

Maybe something like this would produce a better outcome. That's what my intuition told me.
Sounds pretty damn complicated to do... But hey, might worth a try! You can try it too if you like the idea. :)

[spinner361]

Nice dual-position quadruple pendulums. The changing position of the second fulcrum is interesting, I think.

[Gregory]

Well, I think... It's a great try, and performing at a good flywheel level already with much more complexity, but... I don't want to be the devil's advocate here... but wm2d might still got this right.

I wanted to add that I might be wrong.
This is quite a dynamic setup, speed is changed continuously (on purpose), lots of things at play, hard to have a clear feel for it. However, the variator does not add energy per see, instead it creates a kind of potential/gradient or quasi-potential, "an environment" (where motion can happen), or whatever we want to call that... Maybe only a real physical test would tell the full story and the nuances. I am 2/3 sceptic and 1/3 believer basically for everything, including my own theories. ;)

[Kattla]

Maybe my 90s could be used for pump and dumping.
Called the 90s since so much in it are 90 degrees in relation to each other.

Not a runner, but gets quite shaky in the last part, when i increase the mass.
Keep in mind, it is in a game, and not a perfect 3d simulator. While it does full 2 turns when starting the simulation, it do have a very favorable start, and it does not do 2 full turns when i increase the mass.

Still, quite shaky. If it works in the real world, nah. Not as good as in game i think.

The 90s.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_dByDZdx3Q

[Georg Künstler]

Hi Fletcher,
I had build some real models with 8 holes,
as you can see under @Georgkuenstler3108 in youtube.

In your model the rolling weights are not acting syncron and simultaniously.
One of the cylinders must roll to the central axle to your wheel, the other to the rim.
This will produce the torque which is necessary to turn our complete wheel.

Here is the way to synchronize the swinging of the pendulums.
Here is my suggestion: we use a cylindrical roller which can roll in the hole.
we use a L-shaped pendulum arm and put a weight on the left arm of the pendulum.
As result the cylindrical roller will roll to the right. When all rollers are acting in the same way, we get a torque on the main wheel.

internal construction

[johannesbender]

Comment .. B. took the care and effort to identify and include joint pivots in some of his TP woodcut toys, but not in others ..

Fletcher, It's a wonder you can see anything on that dreadful scan ;)

Hey Trev, jb, and dax .. I know we have discussed this before - I still stick to my guns for a couple of reasons ..

1. I try to watch out for confirmation bias - in toys we expect to see pivots therefore we see pivots - but in the scans we also see lots of literally " white noise " so some coincidences might occur that suggest a white point pivot .. many potential pivot sites have no white in the center etc ( are we cherry picking ? ) ..

2. the TP is a small page - even in his day he might have expected someone to study it under a light, maybe even with a magnifying glass - today we can magnify it right up in great detail and perhaps see what he could not ..

3. Pivot size - in the toys C D and E we can clearly see white pivots on a black background to his woodcut - these pivot indicators are all approximately the same size / area ( circle ) - if there were true pivots in A and B toys I would expect there to be consistency across the TP i.e. white pivots in the middle of a black background and the white pivot area to be very similar to the toys that did have true pivots - but I don't see that size relationship and many "nodes" don't have any white in them at all, except at extreme magnification ( white noise ? ) ..

1. I don't agree , the white noise as you mention which you find everywhere of course but this "white noise" is rather neatly located at the center of most to all the round black dots on A and B though , coincidently not very coincidence i believe.

2 & 3. Its good that we are able to magnify it up and see the actual details that ink bleed can hide , not to mention this is wood carved which is not like perfect printing , sometimes you have to work finer holes for the white pivots because the surrounding carving does not allow a proper big hole.

That's my 2 cents .

[Fletcher]

Hi Fletch, Nice to see you started playing around with it and made your changes! Just the start lol ..

Right, the pendulum was just a big show-off, an indication that you can hide it inside the wheel body, hanging from some axle component... an artificial fixed point, kinda...

Well, I think... It's a great try, and performing at a good flywheel level already with much more complexity, but... I don't want to be the devil's advocate here... but wm2d might still got this right. I'm sure it is in one regard, because it is conserving Energy i.e. we gave it energy via the motor rpm start and then with the cycling perfect springs variator, and it conserved all the energy ( none got wasted as dissipative non-conservative energy losses ) ..

I see a few problems with this wheel action, or execution of things.

First, the ratchet-type action might be not as good/desirable as it looks to be.

Let me explain... Imagine a swinger just swung to around 30 or 50 degrees for example, and at that point the wheel just receives a significant pump effect. What will happen with the swinger? Hmm... Because of the speed variation influence, the swinger might again starts to float up higher on the ratchet. Might sound good at first, but this is a double edged sword... It means that the poor swinger partially becomes weightless, and in spite of being in OOB position, still it will not apply its full weight and torque component to the wheel, and loosing time on the descending side. True, anytime we forceably lift weights either on the ascending side or the descending side their inertia works ether against or with the wheel ..

Imagine you have this swinger on an empty workshop table (quite an oximoron really :D)... And of course it's a frictionless table. Now, you play with that swinger on the table, pumping it by grabbing at above the pivot point... it can be swayed either to the left or right, and partially you will not feel its weight anymore if swayed enough or quickly. Yes, that was my cart with dual swinger being pumped and dumped sims earlier on .. see comments below ..

Second, the speed variator at the moment is set to more or less randomly pump and dump. Well, it's determined and cyclic, I know. But some more sophisticated sync would be useful to sway the swingers just at the right time. And perhaps something more "in a flash" movement could be useful. Like the first combustion engine - needed to sort out advancing and retarding of the spark, and fuel mix ratio etc, so would expect some work-ons from a general concept - I am very pleased to now have a better one-way ratchet to work with - that's a good step forward for advanced experiments ..

Third, the weights swinging on the ascending side might cause some negative torque when they swing to the right... Very counter-intuitive, hard to see... weight oriented more into tangential alignment, pulls back with more force (inertia), plus a minor CF effect. Just hanging there simply latched and motionless might be a better solution. Yes, I was figuring that since the bottom swingers swung upwards when the wheel was accelerated, and the top swingers swung upwards when the wheel was decelerated then their inertial pull on the pivots would basically cancel out or near enough to .. as you say locking them for longer or attempting a much more asymmetric pump and dump input might be the way to go ..

So, I will try to make a different version with a more sophisticated latching logic, some time later. I'm not sure how soon... Would be appreciated ..

The idea is like:

- Induce a powerful swing into OOB somewhere at 12 or 1 o'clock, and latch to wheel body there permanently, until around 5 o'clock.
- Release at 5 o'clock, and after 6, latch to the weight stop (roberval) in initial orientation, aka zero degrees position, just hanging down.
- Let it ascend to 11 o'clock, release roberval latch there...
- Tune the speed variator to create this powerful influence for the top swinger, just the right moment. Perhaps a big dump... aka how suddenly the upper/excess weight is caused to rise!

Maybe something like this would produce a better outcome. That's what my intuition told me.
Sounds pretty damn complicated to do... But hey, might worth a try! You can try it too if you like the idea. :)

Interrupted .. will be back asap and continue ..

[Fletcher]

The idea is like:

- Induce a powerful swing into OOB somewhere at 12 or 1 o'clock, and latch to wheel body there permanently, until around 5 o'clock. How high it swings is dependent on the aggressiveness of the pump or dump - the higher the further it can rotate with the wheel before vertical and maybe produce torque all the way down to 5 o'cl - will watch with interest ..
- Release at 5 o'clock, and after 6, latch to the weight stop (roberval) in initial orientation, aka zero degrees position, just hanging down. Good idea ..
- Let it ascend to 11 o'clock, release roberval latch there...
- Tune the speed variator to create this powerful influence for the top swinger, just the right moment. Perhaps a big dump... aka how suddenly the upper/excess weight is caused to rise! I am sure that a quick/sudden rise up is key ..

Maybe something like this would produce a better outcome. That's what my intuition told me. Fine tuning ..
Sounds pretty damn complicated to do... But hey, might worth a try! You can try it too if you like the idea. :)

I wanted to add that I might be wrong.

This is quite a dynamic setup, speed is changed continuously (on purpose), lots of things at play, hard to have a clear feel for it. Agreed - like juggling balls in the air .. However, the variator ( nice name for it ) does not add energy per see, instead it creates a kind of potential/gradient or quasi-potential, "an environment" (where motion can happen), or whatever we want to call that... Maybe only a real physical test would tell the full story and the nuances. For sure ! I am 2/3 sceptic and 1/3 believer basically for everything, including my own theories. ;) Me too !

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

OK .. just to walk it back a bit - I have a basic philosophy or logic framework about B's. runners that I keep to - I am sure they were legit .. I think they were just like any engine today - they needed fuel before they could accelerate and do Work - for me that in-situ replenishing fuel source had to be from its hard connection to the earth's surface i.e. the earth's rotation and wobble gave the runner some momentum which it used and outputted again as Work as well as keeping itself asymmetrically OOB - to have a 'superior' positive OOB ( MT15 says it shows this ) ( n.b. since gravity force is conservative ) then the lever-weights had to be lifted and given GPE and this is turn produced the asymmetric torque - but this lifting had to be quick/sudden ( aka in a flash ), and low or no cost .. this required the intervention of a pulsed Prime Mover structure or Prime Mover structures plural - these were located in the outer regions of the wheels ( all went around with the wheel ) and they took up plenty of space which is why his wheels got larger and larger etc - and from this freely available 'fuel source' and the Prime Mover pulsing the wheel the overbalance was able to grow ( i.e. a positive feedback loop was established that grew the imbalance ) - this makes them "dynamic" wheels and not the normal "passive" weight shifting wheels that fail ..

Anyhoo .. the more dynamic and aggressive it's athleticism the more net positive torque was produced, and the quicker it accelerated from a standing start or small push etc ..

But here's the thing .. the thing why I am not sure a sim program will be able to simulate the mechanics - because as we saw with the Roberval and spring "variator", we put Energy into it - it conserved all the energy even tho the wheels system COM / COG was always located to the right of vertical from the axle - ok, we know it is a dynamic system with lots of moving parts which is hard to keep track of in our heads - but the sim says no extra energy is gained from the input of one-time only energy input i.e. no further energy was put into the system !

* Now, my horizontally shifted cart and swinger sims showed that pumping and dumping the carts with Energy ( f x d ) did NOT give any free lunches - Work Done ( f x d ) equaled the sum of total KE's ( KE1 + KE2 ) plus GPE gained by the swingers - zero sum game at best ..

However,, when the pump and dump input was from impulse sources ( f x t = m v ) then WEEP was violated imo, and the Summed Energy ( totaling KE1 + KE2 + GPE ) was greater than the WD ( f x d ) .. the key is that the pseudo fuel source had to come from a momentum / impulse source ( f x t ) and not from E = WD ( f x d ) ..

* So why do I think wm2d and other sims may not be able to simulate these relationships and show a net wheel gain ? - because my sim lives in my laptop - it's frame of reference ( FOR ) is the screen " environment " - IF the true Energy source for a runner came from momentum from the earth connection then how can the program simulate that repeating input accurately from its artificial FOR ? - that's why I have my doubts about what it is showing / allowing, even tho the spring powered variator is Energy based ( not impulse or momentum f x t ), and there is no further 'replenishing pseudo fuel source' to keep the dynamism / excitation growing and gaining as a true runner did, imo ..

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