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

[johannesbender]

Honestly imo , i think you can skip straight to Q2 , because for Q1 (would it torque if you have a motor moving the post up and down) is something i already looked at with a single mass (non swinger) on a disk moving up and down (can be considered a pendulum moved up and down) - if the up and down happens at the correct time it would torque the wheel through 360 (a no brainer imo) .

But as for the second part of Q1 (would it close the energy loop for your swingers to continue torqueing ) i think that's the only important thing you need to look at whether motored or your prime mover.

The truth is there are videos of people who calculated the behavior of pendulum on carts moving sideward , so if you find that an energy loop is sustained it would be in utter contrast to the experiments or calculations of others .

Edit: although a motor would help find a correct timing .

[johannesbender]

I had a stupid question to which i already knew the answer then removed it :/

It would be interesting to see the results in real life . Good luck

[Fletcher]

Hey jb .. fwiw I am not trying to rewrite the Classical Laws of Mechanics and Newtonian Physics - in fact I'm trying to draw between the lines and stay within them, believe it or not ..

But as you and I, and some others know, there are some inescapable truths that can't be conveniently swept under the carpet about leverage - it is confronting to have to finally face up to them for anyone who does so ..

We have said that B's. wheels are essentially OOB wheels - that is not in dispute by most who research this .. the crux of the matter is that using leverage mechanics to brute force lift a weight into OB is zero sum at best - a wheel has no " excess weight/impetus " ( or excess/asymmetric torque ) - we all know that, from our own investigations and by standing on the shoulders of the thousands of others who have tried unsuccessfully down thru the ages before us - an alternate approach to "" easy/light " lifting of a heavy " thing " high " is needed - a new expanded context beyond leverage and implements used for mechanical advantage and leverage that Wagner lists etc ..

B. does give us some pointers which we are all familiar with, and I'll briefly give some main ones again - but I believe we have to read them with an open mind to perhaps glimpse a different context and meaning as it is easy to jump to conclusions ..

From John Collins AP ..

"But I would like to add this friendly note of caution:- A great craftsman would be that man who can lightly (easily) cause (throw) a heavy weight to fly upwards ! Who can make a pound-weight rise as 4 ounces fall, or 4 pounds rise as 16 ounces fall. If he can sort that out, the motion will perpetuate itself. But if he can't, then his hard work shall be all in vain" – AP pg 295

He will be called a great craftsman,
who can easily/lightly throw a heavy thing high,
and if one pound falls a quarter,
it shoots four pounds four quarters high. &c. ( Translation Stewart Hughes & Tinhead )

XX1 (b) Here Wagner lists all mechanical implements. ... But did I not, in Part One, devote more than one line to a discussion of the type of “excess impetus“ that people should look for in my devices ? Once more I will humbly extol the virtues of this passage to my next worthy reader. Even Wagner, wherever he is now, will have heard that one pound can cause the raising of more than one pound. He writes that, to date, no one has ever found a mechanical arrangement (Wagner XXI heading mechanical implements) sufficient for the task. He’s right ! So am I, and does anyone see why ? What if I were to teach the proper method of mechanical application? Then people would say: “Now I understand !” – AP pg 342

"I don't want to go into the details here of how suddenly the excess weight is caused to rise. You can't comprehend these matters, or see how true craftsmanship can rise above innate lowly tendencies (as does a weight above the point of application of a lever)" – AP pg 357

Anyhoo .. you and I agree that the lifting into OOB must happen fast and at little energy cost so there is a surplus of rotational energy / momentum for a wheel to very quickly accelerate and gain rpm .. that needs a new way of thinking about the problem that B. bashes Wagner over the head about .. i.e. a different context is introduced in his words about the rapid and easy lifting technique/application required and teachable .. so the onus is on us the re-frame and re-context the problem to find a mechanical solution that does result in excess energy / momentum ( p.s. excess weight/impetus is just another way of saying OOB ) ..

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

So as I've said many times, for me, probably the bigger problem is to with some sort of logic integrity put up a hypothesis on where that energy / momentum ( both sides of the same coin ) is entering the system and how it is repurposed and outputted as wheel energy / momentum ? i.e. the quick acceleration and rpm gain ..

So I have attempted to do that with some sim experiments of Swingers in action, moved by different methods - and by having the likes of Gregory and you for example, who know your physics, and sim programs, and who have a good brain, try to stress test the trends I believe they show - because these trends if validated should lead to some conclusions about the practical nature of WEEP and possible short comings in WEEP Theory ( that would be a major hole in the argument against an overunity OOB wheel ) ..

IOW's Gregory and I are trying to apply the Scientific Principle to these experiments and design, and in the way we analyze the data the sims predict/output - and hopefully ( one way or another ) they can be viewed as thorough and rigorous - and stand close up scrutiny and be reliably predictable, or an abberence in the Classical Laws and their assumed symmetry at the local earth bound level !

Should we get past that hurdle then it becomes a matter of how the wheel is " further animated " to swing my Swingers at low energy cost into OB to build the whole-of-wheel acceleration and gain in rpm .. and to do that I proposed widening the net beyond the confines of an OOB wheel in-and-of-itself ..

It ain't 20th Century rocket science .. 18th Century Context .. * Karl said it was simple to understand and build * ..

[Fletcher]

I should have said nobody has to have sim experience to follow these sims, or mentally pull them apart and put them back together - they are case specific thought experiments that we can do in our minds - the animations and outputs are included so anyone and everyone can follow with ease ..

[Fletcher]

.. The truth is there are videos of people who calculated the behavior of pendulum on carts moving sideward , so if you find that an energy loop is sustained it would be in utter contrast to the experiments or calculations of others .

What they haven't explored is the symmetry of WEEP when inertia changes happen as force is applied etc ..

If I push a swinger cart horizontally with the pend bob locked to vertical beneath it ( as per the sims ), or above it as an upright pendulum then everything is consistent i.e. energy = f * d and momentum = m * v = f * t ( impulse ) - and believe it or not for every f * d we get a consistent f * t and visa versa ( both sides of the same coin ) ..

But when the swinger pend bob is free to lag or advance depending on the direction of the push before it locks-out ( e.g a 2 opposite legs system ) my sims show this symmetry between f * d and f * t leaves the building .. because imo of the swingers ability to morph its shape and have different inertial reactions at different times during a transaction ..

If I'm not wrong that is what the math is saying and what I have been saying about splitting inertia and time - WEEP Theorem no longer has Symmetry, and a potential workaround technically becomes possible for an overunity OB wheel, imo ..

[johannesbender]

Some of these videos i have seen they calculate how the pendulum is going to swing or behave according to accepted methods (i dont understand all their math) , and some video i have seen showing for instance another example of the efficiency of moving the cart to the side being much better (obviously) to swing a hanging pendulum upward to then balance it upright with robotics .

But my point was , if you are showing something that is different with any law or theorem or mathematical outcome , it would be in contrast to any outcome people predict or calculate because they assume there is none , for example if the total KE out is more than the total KE in - there must be a gain or more than 100% efficiency which is in contrast with laws , to be clear I'm not saying you are showing commonly known things or that you are trying to violate laws - i understand you are saying the results of your sim's calculations does not seem to fit to the work energy principle and exploring the consequences .

Some videos for interest , not all are 100% related but still somewhat on the topic of carts and pendulums and how some calculate.
https://youtu.be/hSidjF-d-OQ
https://youtu.be/dJlW7WOQg-g
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CpOQmJvTxRY

[justsomeone]

Raise in a flash and land gently, hmmm.....

[Gregory]

Some of these videos i have seen they calculate how the pendulum is going to swing or behave according to accepted methods (i dont understand all their math) , and some video i have seen showing for instance another example of the efficiency of moving the cart to the side being much better (obviously) to swing a hanging pendulum upward to then balance it upright with robotics .

But my point was , if you are showing something that is different with any law or theorem or mathematical outcome , it would be in contrast to any outcome people predict or calculate because they assume there is none , for example if the total KE out is more than the total KE in - there must be a gain or more than 100% efficiency which is in contrast with laws , to be clear I'm not saying you are showing commonly known things or that you are trying to violate laws - i understand you are saying the results of your sim's calculations does not seem to fit to the work energy principle and exploring the consequences .

Some videos for interest , not all are 100% related but still somewhat on the topic of carts and pendulums and how some calculate.
https://youtu.be/hSidjF-d-OQ
https://youtu.be/dJlW7WOQg-g
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CpOQmJvTxRY

That's nice, thanks for sharing!
I actually follow Dot Physics, great channel.
Michel van Biezen, I encountered some of his videos when I researched different maths/physics stuff. Actually, it gave me an idea this time too...

One note...
What these guys are usually doing is to describe a system, come up with the equations of motion, lots of times using the machinery of the Euler-Lagrange equation to spit out the F=ma for the actual system. And then they can "play" the evolution of the system in whatever way they want. The result will be according to the laws of physics as you said. But these are continuous motions within the actual framework.

When I think about a mechanical setup, I usually split the motions/happenings into several controlled/coordinated steps, and think it through that way. To say some silly example, like: Falls down, rolls there, latches, catches, later swings around, rides the wheel, and returns to the starting position, etc... So, it becomes a process of several steps. It's not a single equation of motion anymore, I think you can't write an equation of motion for something like that, at least not a single one. When I have six discrete steps for example, then I can write six equations and six initial condition to describe that. But in each step the system changes, transforms into something else, mathematically it's not the same thing anymore...

And perhaps this train of thoughts holds a clue. I think if B's wheel was genuine, it has to be something like this, a process of different steps in just the right order. Or something with self-circularity. But most likely it can't be a simple equation of motion, that would have been discovered easily a long time ago... Maybe this is the unknown or hidden room/space/logic between our physics knowledge (equations) and Bessler's wheel.
So, is it a real room?
Just got this on my mind.

[Fletcher]

Thanks for sharing also jb ..

I agree that they probably start from the assumption of COE and Conservation of Momentum and then show their math skills to confirm that outcome - you can't rock the boat when its up in dry dock .. if you don't look you won't find ..

And fwiw I approach things much like Gregory does it seems - I first build a mind-sim of parts to then fit together to make a whole - this discreet steps strategy is probably more finely tuned in me these days because I tend to build a real-sim from the bottom up looking for a weakness in Classical Physics Laws, Principles, and Theorems as I go .. especially when you want cheap, quick and easy weights lifting into torque, and because of that condition unholy wheel acceleration worthy to write home about ..

On that note .. Greg .. I am rebuilding the 2 leg swinger comparison sims, with what I hope will be an interesting twist - started the sim-builds this morning so should have something to show before too long ..

[Gregory]

On that note .. Greg .. I am rebuilding the 2 leg swinger comparison sims, with what I hope will be an interesting twist - started the sim-builds this morning so should have something to show before too long ..

Great, have a good time! and let's see what results it produce...
I started experimenting with a new idea, no cigars so far, but a lot of strange sim behaviour. Need to think through again from the beginning.

[Fletcher]

Here's the twist Gregory .. the dimensions and masses are much closer to your recent 1 Leg experiments ..
Here I compare 3 Swingers against WEEP Theorem - 1 is the Control - 2 is able to raise up its pend bobs - 3's pend bobs are able to fall ..

** I have taken out much of the Outputs and let the visuals speak for themselves ** i.e. doesn't clutter the sim to the same degree ..

Each Swinger is given the 2 Leg treatment - equal and opposite f * t ( Impulse ) = m * v ( Momentum ) so they come to a stop again for the experiment ..

The Control Swinger has unchanging Inertia ( it can't morph shape ) - its results are entirely consistent with WEEP - where for each of the 2 Legs the f * d equals the KEt gained and lost etc ( same with summed Totals of the Legs ) - it gains and loses the same amount of Momentum each Leg from the Impulses ..

Compared to the Control 1 is Swingers 2 and 3 - 2 has pend bobs able to raise upwards on acceleration and deceleration respectively - 3 has pend bobs able to fall down respectively ( n.b. you can adjust the height loss by adjusting the separator length input ) ..

** Overall you can Input any amount of Force magnitude and Time it is applied - the results are consistent across a range of Inputs and imo the trends firm ..

For all Swingers the KEt gained in Leg 1 is the same, it is also the same for Leg 2 ( and the summed Total ) - their momentum gains and losses are also the same ..

However for Swingers 2 and 3 the distances they travel/translate in Leg 1 and leg 2 are different from the Control - Total distance translated is the same for all three - this means the f * d for Swingers 2 and 3 does not equal KEt gained or lost in the individual Legs ( inconsistent with WEEP Theory ) ..

In both cases it does not matter whether the pend bobs raise up or fall down - KEt is always the same for each Leg - however they gain or lose GPE ( Energy ) - and as we know GPE gain can be turned into Torque in a circular environment etc ..

Why f * d does not equal KEt for the Legs is imo because of the inertial effects of morphing shape ( delayed inertia effect ) and the time the pend bobs are either rising up or falling down .. imo this makes WEEP theory suspect when these inertial changes can take place - the free lifting of the pend bobs is imo a downstream effect of an inertial cause ..

** this experiment could be turned 90 degrees and run vertically with gravity - in theory the results would be consistent with this sim result for the horizontal application, imo ..

** anyone is welcome to have a play with the sim and see if they can reach and sustain different conclusions ..

** you can run just Leg 1 and analyze that, or both Legs etc ..

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



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

[Fletcher]

I may put the results into a table format but I don't think it is necessary .. with passion comes inaccuracy, so I might end up doing that exercise anyway just to make the trends clear as can be ..

** If you adjust the separator length in Swinger 3 you will see that the Leg 1 and 2 translation distances and hence the f * d Newton-Meters ( Joules ) reflect the delayed Inertia and Time variable effects - atm they are matched closely to Swinger 2 angles and heights for a direct comparison to show that whether you gain or lose GPE is irrelevant .. but one has torque potential ..

[johannesbender]

What if you assemble them like the "hammermen" from the TP ?

[daxwc]

Fletcher: .. with passion comes inaccuracy,…

Never heard that before.

I keep looking at your Sims Fletcher and all I see is the start of Moment of Inertia it's rotational intertwined with energy and torque. I don’t see any difference to the roller racers starts. The ability to manipulate MOI during motion.

[Gregory]

Here's the twist Gregory .. the dimensions and masses are much closer to your recent 1 Leg experiments ..
Here I compare 3 Swingers against WEEP Theorem - 1 is the Control - 2 is able to raise up its pend bobs - 3's pend bobs are able to fall ..

** I have taken out much of the Outputs and let the visuals speak for themselves ** i.e. doesn't clutter the sim to the same degree ..

Hey Fletcher,

Interesting sim...

So, basically in all 3 cases you invested the same amount of energy to accelerate/decelerate the carts, and at the end the main difference between the carts is the change in GPE? Am I interpret this right?

Also, the distance travelled by the swingers might be different when they allowed to swing at acceleration or deceleration...
However, if you consider the cart plus the swingers as one 8 Kg object, then it does not really matter how much each swinger actually travelled. After all each cart plus swingers team can be considered a single object when the swingers are locked/latched... and from this viewpoint the travel of the cart itself is what really matters. Does this way of thinking makes sense?