Another gravity wheel?

[Fletcher]

I know Bruce Welsh also thinks that the spiral ramp hints at some mysterious vortex affects creating the OU.

Can you provide any math or something more substantial to give a more detailed explanation of how this 'time' gives greater KE when the ball contacts the paddlewheel ?

The spiral ramp could be replaced by a a second paddlewheel where the ball rides around the radius until being released into the geared paddlewheel at 6 o'cl. This also would take substantially longer, time wise, than free falling straight down & then onto a curved ramp to turn it sideways.

The advantage of the spiral ramp is that there are no moving parts & the time for the ball to descend top to bottom is the same each release event.

A second paddlewheel to replace the spiral ramp would build up momentum (if it were free spinning) so that it already had some velocity when the ball was released from the hopper & the trip down would get successively quicker for each marble. What would that do to the resultant KE at the paddlewheel ?

[jim_mich]

The rolling balls develop more kinetic energy when dropped into a votex than if they were dropped vertically. Time is the reason.

At first I was going to say "I really don't think that's true." but I wasn't sure. So I used WM2D to do a test. I made two ramps with two cylinders. Everything was identical except the ramp length and angle. I expected both cylinders to have equal total energy at the bottom. I expected a difference in horizontal velocity and rotational speed but thought that when added together they would be comparable. I was wrong. The cylinder with the steeper ramp was rolling slower at the bottom of the ramp. I thought maybe they slid before rolling so I changed the materials but I got similar results. It seems that the cylinder on the longer less steep ramp has more time on the ramp and gains more energy.

The ramp angles were -18.472 and -25.220 degrees. The height was 2.50 inches for both. Both cylinders 1 inch diameter and were positioned 0.001 inch to the right of the ramp corner so that they would roll down the ramp and not balance on the corner. The horizontal velocity and rotational velocity were each about 3 percent faster and the total kinetic energy about 6 percent more on the longer less steep ramp.

I find this very interesting. Part of the downward energy force of gravity went into rotational energy and part into translational energy. But unlike a weight that moves along a closed path as it circles a wheel, these two weights did not gain equal amounts of energy when they dropped equal distances. Unless I'm wrong in my assesment this means that if a weight is forces to rotate as it drops it might be able to recover that energy and raise the weight back higher.

This will take some studying...

[Michael]

Edit.

[Fletcher]

Jim .. what heights do they reach if allowed to run up a ramp again ? The ramps can be the same slope or different slopes.

Sort of looks similar to the Brachistrome (sp) experiments ?

[Michael]

What's the energy of both weights when they are at the bottom of the ramps before they change angle and roll on the ground? I am wondering if there is a greater loss in the steeper ram ( as there should be ) do to absorbtion.

[Bessler007]

Jim,

I've been looking at this for the last several months. You mentioned two ramps. I compared a vertical drop to a ramp. In a vertical drop the mass will be traveling about twice as fast as the mass rolling down the ramp. They will both have the same peak of kinetic energy. The mass in a vertical drop will have more momentum because it has more velocity.

The kinetic energy of a vertical drop is represented by the light blue of the graph. The two kinetic energies of the mass going down the ramp are in grey. Although both reach the same peak the mass rolling down the ramp maintains that energy more often than the vertical drop.

My hunch is that what a vertical drop loses in kinetic energy is transferred into momentum. It seems clear to me that there's more kinetic energy developed if it develops slowly but harnessing it is a puzzle.


☯

[Bessler007]

I used a 100 meter ramp with a one degree slope. The sphere was 1/2 meter in diameter and weighed 0.196 Kg. The vertical drop was 1.747 meters.

☯

[LustInBlack]

Interesting discussion ..

As I see it, the pendulum in my variation could tap into that ball KE and at the same time allow it to fall at it's speed.

I did some tests into WM2D, can't say yet if it's worth something, but with a very tiny gear ratio, I tap the pendulum movement, with a ratchet, I keep the elevator going in the same direction ..

When the pendulum goes CW I tap energy, and let it fall on it's own CCW ..

I find it interesting that I can make that pendulum very very long and get more leverage doing so..

What I did, is that at the start, the pendulum don't even move! .. Stand still .. Then a ball enter the pendulum and roll down the hill, moving the pendulum.. The pendulum gets energy by tapping the ball, then it's tapping energy in the ball and in it's own motion during descent. The ball acts in different way on the pendulum, it gets more leverage when it's down the hill ...

Here is a very crude screenshot . [Please don't laugh at my simulation hehe] ..
Btw, the elevator is just a weight on a wheel, it's not at correct position, nor efficient. And, the wheel is just not moving correctly, my slopping ratcheting mech will not stop the weight from falling correctly yet, so it's normal that the weight seem to not move in those pictures, but it did, but fall back when the pendulum is disconnected from the wheel.


Amplitude of the pendulum is increased each time the ball fall on another ramp, that's another interesting point ! .. Because the elevator could stay still and start turning as soon as the ball have increased the pendulum swing enough .. The movement of the elevator would be inertia of the pendulum alone, then the new ball would enter the pendulum that is now standing still ! .

That has potential, I think. . ;]

[Michael]

Bessler007 I'm trying to follow you.

I compared a vertical drop to a ramp. In a vertical drop the mass will be traveling about twice as fast as the mass rolling down the ramp.

Do you mean it will reach the end distance twice as quickly?

They will both have the same peak of kinetic energy. The mass in a vertical drop will have more momentum because it has more velocity.

By peak do you mean quantity or magnitude? If so, then I think you mean the verticle dropped weight will have a greater linear velocity.

Although both reach the same peak the mass rolling down the ramp maintains that energy more often than the vertical drop.

I don't get this, how and why are you getting changes? Things should be the same every time the experiement is performed as long as the variables don't change.

My hunch is that what a vertical drop loses in kinetic energy is transferred into momentum. It seems clear to me that there's more kinetic energy developed if it develops slowly but harnessing it is a puzzle.

Your trying to say that the energy is there but in the form of momentum, but that would show up as velocity. There are only two things that could be happpening.

One, is the energies of both are the same but are conserved in different forms.

Two, there are losses unaccounted for.

[jim_mich]

Michael,
The differences could be due to the transition from ramp to flat table. The peak translational energies are within less than 1 percent of each other before hitting the table. This less than 1 percent difference could be due to the 'step' size with WM2D. The energy lost when rolling from the ramp to the table is more on the steeper ramp and may account for the difference.

[Bessler007]

Michael,

The drop of each mass is 1.747 meters. When the mass in a vertical drop covers that distance, it is moving about twice as fast as the mass going down the ramp at it's finish. A vertical drop travels that distance much faster than one heading down the ramp. I think it drops in about a half a second. It takes the weight 45 seconds to roll down the ramp.

By peak do you mean quantity or magnitude?

Are you making a distinction between quanity and magnitude? The maximum kinetic energy for both the vertical drop and the mass rolling down the ramp are the same. They both eventually reach the same quantity. That's about 3.3 joules.

I don't get this, how and why are you getting changes? Things should be the same every time the experiement is performed as long as the variables don't change.

I didn't make this clear. I'm not talking about different results everytime I check. The time it takes for the kinetic energy to develop is longer as it develops slowly. The area under the curve is greater. I drew it with straight lines but it's a curve. The light grey area represents rotational kinetic energy. It's a stacked graph. It's also an approximation.

Your trying to say that the energy is there but in the form of momentum, but that would show up as velocity.

That's my conclusion. Velocity is a factor of momentum.

☯

edit. :) The quantity of kinetic energy if it is slowly developed is greater than in a vertical drop. Both reach the same magnitude (peak) but the mass rolling down the ramp spends more time doing it. That time accounts for the greater quantity. This might be an idea behind a Bessler wheel or at least one of the ideas.

[Oystein]

"1 minute" of analyze in WM2 will show you that the difference is that the steeper the surface, the more energy is lost when "hitting" the flat surface.
Time, or any other factor does not play a part in gaining anything,
but only "energyloss". (conversion to heat/sound)
I guess WM2 takes this into account as it also would do this in real life !

Try making the incline all vertical, and see how much kinetic energy the ball have, when it is not rolling at all ;-)

Best
Oystein

[Bessler007]

Try making the incline all vertical, and see how much kinetic energy the ball have, when it is not rolling at all ;-)

It develops 3.3 joules in either case. As it rolls down a long one degree incline one third of that energy is rotational.

☯

[1712]

Wasn't the 12 foot diameter wheel supposed to go at 26 rpm?

I made a 12 foot diameter wheel in WM2D and pinned it to rotate at the center with a motor making it turn 26 rpm...

THEN

I made a not quite 6 foot pendulum and pinned it to the background about a half inch below the center of the wheel (so as not to interfere with the axle of the wheel). If you pin small circles near the rim of the wheel ( so as to visually compare the velocity of the wheel with the velocity of the pendulum.....

You can palinly see that a pendulum will swing and keep up with the wheel velocity almost exactly at the bottom of the pendulum's swing.

It is the same with the reported velocities and corresponding diameters of the other wheels.



War Hammer

[Mac]

Couldn't a steel ball's velocity be easily compared in real life using a coiled piece of tubing? Perhaps suspend it over wax/clay/etc. and compare indentations of one dropped through the coil and another one just dropped.

Mac