Continuation of debate;
Ralph wrote:
True it is the momentum inertia and or kinetic force that makes a weight swing, But neither of these can produce the swing or cause a set amplitude without gravity. It is gravity that provides the to and fro which creates the inertia.
No, it is inertia working to and fro with any force, be it gravity or springs or even leveraging against other weights that can cause a weight to move to and fro.
In another post you agree to disagree which could be interpreted that you do not wish to continue this debate.
Inertia working to and fro is like a paradox. Inertia is resistance in moving a motionless mass and is also resistance of stopping it once moving. when a swinging mass is on its upward swing it will cease motion or reach amplitude when it runs out of inertia. It comes to a physical stop and is motionless. Gravity overcomes the inertial resistance of a non-moving mass and sets it back into motion on its downward path.
I agree that this can be accomplished by springs or leveraging, but you do not explain or give any examples of how these springs or levers obtain potential gradient. To push something a spring must be compressed, to pull something it must be put under tension.
Ralph wrote:
I do not consider gravity as a secondary force as it is the root of all that procedes it, not precede it.
I guess this is a matter of opinion. But if gravity is a secondary force with a water powered wheel then it would be a secondary force with an inertia powered gravity wheel. Both would be powered by the out of balance weight which is secondary after the weight is first lifted up higher.
Yes, apparently it is a matter of opinion! First I do not look upon gravity as a secondary force in a water wheel. I see it as the prime mover, builder of inertia in motion of a mass called water. While being retained by a barrier such as a dam, it is motionless, static. when released it is gravity which changes the motionless inertia to motion.
You say secondary after the weight is first lifted higher, but you do not explain what is lifting said weight.
Ralph wrote:
We are talking different creatures in the eye of the beholder. I consider any weight that swings no matter the physical connection that is activated/controlled by gravity will meet and comply with the known physics of a pendulum. I agree that it need not be called a pendulum. But if it swings like one reacts like one then by any other name it is a pendulum.
If it swings freely like a pendulum then it is a pendulum. But if it swings/moves like a swinging/moving weight interconnected to other weights, well... it can no longer can be called a simple pendulum, though you might call it a compound pendulum. It certainly doesn't swing and react like a simple pendulum. I find the best way to describe it is as Bessler described it: a swinging/moving weight.
It may be called a bifilar or Foucault as two examples. A swinging /moving weight is one that swings on a variable or sliding pivot point. Such as depicted in Bessler's drawings of the pendulum viewed in the left portion of his drawing. As it osculates it also reciprocates: to give or take mutually.
The hammer toy is the example, most probably look at this toy and attempt to imagine it rotating in a wheel. IMO this is not what it represents.
As one hammer drops the other is raising thus one is exchanging its inertia to the other. An osculating, reciprocating paired mass in motion by a give and take. or as Bessler put it "a transference' The only energy spent is that used in the friction of movement. But what have you done to the COG of the device?
First Parable; "Greed is the root of all evil" What is he saying? IMO he is saying that most believe a lot is better than less. Use small weights set in motion a short distance setting in order a pulsating osculation in a reciprocal manner.
suggest that you review Stewart's task of translating 's Gravensande's
REMARQUES SUR LA POSSIBILITÉ DU MOUVEMENT PERPETUEL
Ralph wrote:
True a swinging weight can be swung by many different forces, wind, muscle, etc. As for a weight swinging using CF, I am afraid that I would have to see some tangible evidence. True it will cause a weight to swing out but not in, and without in-out there is no swinging.
All I can do is laugh. Making two weights swing, one in and the other out is very simple. And each time they swing the CF is strongest in the direction that they swing, so they gain energy by swinging. But now is not yet the time for me to reveal how it might be done.
Laugh all you wish! Yes, weights swinging in pairs, one in and one out is very simple. And no the CF is always pulling on the pivot point no matter the direction of swing. The energy gained is applied to the connecting retainment and is called Centripetal.
I await the day you can reveal how it might be done.
Ralph wrote:
Please define/describe how a swinging weight differs in its swing from a swinging pendulum which is a swinging weight?
I think I answered this. A pendulum swings back and forth, to and fro in a simple balancing between gravty force and momentum force. A swinging weight is swinging on a rotating wheel and swings in a very complex path and is driven and pushed/pulled by many forces, and at times is prevented from moving by being latched to the wheel. A swinging weight may resemble a simple pendulum, but it doesn't act like a simple pendulum.
Are you saying that because the weight is swinging on a wheel along side of a pendulum also attached is going to react differently? how do the differ? Either can be latched and both must follow the same complex path.
Sounds like "a rose by any other name is still a rose".
Jim_Mich wrote:
I take it to mean that you think the pivot point(s) must change their locations in order for a wheel to work.
Ralph wrote:
But yes you have explained my opinion very well. I believe that if the pivot point is attached (fixed) and the weights latch at a different orientation, then that different orientation will probably be symmetrical orientated to the disk all is mounted upon.
Huh? Ralph, did you by any chance work for a government agency in the past? Your words sound like government double speak. If weights swing between point A and point B then they will be unsymetrical (and thus out of balance) at one or the other (probably both) points. So how can you say that they will probably be symmetrical orientated?
Yes I did work for a Government agency, but that is irrelevant as it was not political orientated where double talk is the accepted thing.
I say they will be symmetrical orientated, not to each other but in relation and reference to the wheel they are mounted upon.
Ralph wrote:
There are how ever ways (In my thinking) to negate this problem and that is if the vortex of the weight/s is allowed to change its axis, or the pivot point comes from, physically in, on, or around the axis of the wheel axle.
Golly Ralph, I don't think there is any problem, all you need do is let the weights change their locations on the wheel! And the very easiest way is to let them swing from one location to another location. Trying to move the vortex/pivot point is doing things the hard way.
Swinging from one location to the other does not define movement of the pivot point, which I feel is necessary to keep the unit as a whole OOB Remember a pendulum or suspended weight are both in balance when hanging vertical without motion.
Ralph
