Just on an impulse ...

[greendoor]

Imagine this idea ...

Think of those swinging ball desktop toys - where you have a bunch of hanging balls that sit tightly together in a row. You pick up the end one, and drop it. The impulse travels through the whole row of balls, and the end ball flys out as if by magic...

Now imagine this experiment with the balls suspended so they form a 45 degree upwards slope. Is it still going to work uphill? I don't see why not - we are just transfering the impact energy through the balls - I can't see gravity having much to do with this energy transfer ...

Now imagine a vertical stack of balls ... could we arrange for the top ball to fall off, accumulate kinetic energy in freefall, than strike the bottom ball via a lever, forcing the ball at the top to fall off? I don't see why not - however, this would result in the tower reducing by one ball at a time ...

OK - could we get the ball that falls to re-join the stack at the bottom - preserving the number and height of the stack? At this point - probably not. The force of one falling ball is not going to be enough to basically raise the whole stack to allow the ball to squeeze back in ...

OK - step back a bit ...

Lets say instead of a vertical stack of balls, we have a full-circular stack of balls in a gravity wheel...

Let's say that this is arranged with partitions with holes near the hub - so that when the balls sit in these holes, they are all in physical contact with each other ...

Now imagine that at TDC, there is a carefully place hole so that if there are two balls in the top partition - one ball can fall out and free fall to the bottom ... (if only one ball, it continues on around, so the wheel stays full)

So we basically have a full round-about, on it's side, with one extra passenger who doesn't really have a spare seat ... like musical chairs ...

Imagine that the falling ball strikes a lever at the bottom - sending a shockwave through the chain of other balls, causing the top ball to jump into the air, and have no option but to roll, fall out the hole and start the process again ..

Meanwhile, the force of the falling ball impact has turned the wheel and made a space availalbe at the bottom of the que ...

Something like that ... any merit?

[bluesgtr44]

Maybe something along the lines of this?

http://www.astrosa.com/jan/default.htm


Steve

[greendoor]

Thank you! That's remarkably similar to this crazy idea i'm toying with.

I am sure that impact impulses can cause a ball to fly upwards - enough to disturb equilibrium and fall off.

The problem of inserting a ball into the bottom of a stack of balls is the real problem there. But imagine a gravity wheel that accelerates and decelerates - where the radius constantly changes. This could, by itself, add up to zero. But what it does is allow "breaks in the traffic" where a spare ball could be rolled into place ..

[hansvonlieven]

Sorry guys, but your speculations in regard to Newton's cradle (which is what the device we are discussing here is called) are not based on fact.

Newton's cradle works only as expected if all the metal spheres are equal in mass. If there is inequality in mass the cradle behaves differently. A small weight hitting a larger one will NOT move the larger weight but simply bounce back. This has led in the past to doubts that Newton's statements about conservation of momentum are generally valid.

In the proposed device the single weight collides with a lever that allegedly moves a stack of balls. It will not do this. The stack of balls acts as a larger single weight, therefore the smaller weight will simply bounce back up and not move anything other than itself.

Hans von Lieven

[ovyyus]

I agree with Hans.

An interesting experiment along these lines can be done by dropping a basket ball and a tennis ball together - the two are dropped so that when they hit the ground the tennis ball is resting on top of the basket ball. What happens is that the rebound energy of the heavier basketball is transferred to the lighter tennis ball that is resting on top of it, shooting the tennis ball remarkably high into the air from a relatively small combined drop height.

[bluesgtr44]

Thanks Hans and Bill....you know, the thing I see about this is what was the relation to the maximum speed and what was actually happening inside the covering. Just because the displayed exterior was rotating at 50+ rpm's, doesn't mean that was what the inside was doing. To be able to perform as his wheels were able to do, it would seem as though there was a considerable amount of control from within.....it wasn't getting away from him....he had it under control. He mentions that they were "enclosed/encased within a structure or framework...." this seems to me to be a path....and I just don't think he meant the outer structure or wheel as we call it....is what he is referring to here.

To slow the actual driving offset by using some sort of reduction engineering is not a far stretch as to what might have been happening. The witness descriptions do support the argument of some sort of reduction device(s) as to the smooth and rapid acceleration rate. I find MT12 interesting in that it mentions...."weights do not project so far out but lie closer to the center and furthermore do not swing out to the side so much and thereby cause the wheel to shake a great deal."

So, is he talking about eliminating the reaction forces?.....for the most part anyway. If he found the real solution to cause OOB.....he had to find a way to harness it. I think if someone had a wheel that could not only revolve of it's own accord....it could also perform work.....it was of some really unseen force known to us all......or he found that path to OOB.....


Steve

[hansvonlieven]

Bessler allowed people to touch the weights, albeit after wrapping them in a handkerchief. He would not allow them to touch the ends suggesting some sort of gearing or pins that ran in a groove.

Hans

[Michael]

A small weight hitting a larger one will NOT move the larger weight but simply bounce back. This has led in the past to doubts that Newton's statements about conservation of momentum are generally valid.

Hans I agree that a smaller weight won't have the same effect since the larger weight has more mass/inertia to overcome but I think there should be some movement imparted to the larger weight even if it is realively small.

[Fletcher]

It does Michael, if the spherical weights are lined up on a flat surface - in the case of a Newton's cradle they are suspended by ropes [like pendulums, as you know] so in order for each weight to move sideways they also have to lift upwards [gain PE], which is why IMO you don't get the same visual sense of movement or transfer of momentum, though the conservation of momentum must still hold true.

[greendoor]

Sorry guys, but your speculations in regard to Newton's cradle (which is what the device we are discussing here is called) are not based on fact.

Newton's cradle works only as expected if all the metal spheres are equal in mass. If there is inequality in mass the cradle behaves differently. A small weight hitting a larger one will NOT move the larger weight but simply bounce back. This has led in the past to doubts that Newton's statements about conservation of momentum are generally valid.

In the proposed device the single weight collides with a lever that allegedly moves a stack of balls. It will not do this. The stack of balls acts as a larger single weight, therefore the smaller weight will simply bounce back up and not move anything other than itself.

Hans von Lieven

Interesting. Perhaps a carefully designed lever & rod, of precisely the right mass, could be designed to transfer the impulse from the falling ball back up to top ball to send it flying upward ...

The problem would then be of inserting the fallen ball back into the stack.

I am imagining the "peacock tail" expanding and contracting, allowing the ball space to be inserted ... this expansion & contraction could be from a pendulum effect ... and why would the pendulum keep moving? Because half the time it is overbalanced - depending on whether a ball was in the air at the time ...

It's a "plausible" for me ...

[hansvonlieven]

A small weight hitting a larger one will NOT move the larger weight but simply bounce back. This has led in the past to doubts that Newton's statements about conservation of momentum are generally valid.

Hans I agree that a smaller weight won't have the same effect since the larger weight has more mass/inertia to overcome but I think there should be some movement imparted to the larger weight even if it is realively small.

Sorry Michael,

If there is a reaction at all along the lines you mention it has never been measured. Perhaps because it is too small, perhaps because it is not there. Hence the controversy.

There are a number of other anomalies associated with Newton's cradle, if you believe some researchers. The whole thing does not appear to be as cut and dried as some would imagine.

Hans von Lieven

[greendoor]

Lifted from the Halfbakery:

The swinging ball toy always reminds me of an installation at the 1964 World's Fair in Queens, New York. A column of steel balls were stacked on top of each other about 25" high, each ball was about 1 1/2" in diameter, they were encased in a tubular cage the bottom of which was a turned back upwards 180 degrees, like a big letter 'J'. At the bottom of the 'J' more tubing formed a kind of rollercoaster for the balls, once a ball would go down this track, it would whirl around picking up speed and momentum, eventually it would spin around the track to a point directly over the top of the 'J', hit a stop and drop down on top the column from a height of 10" or so. This would knock the last ball in line at the bottom on to the chute. Hate to say perpetual motion, but it sure seemed perpetual to me.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ty6, Jul 07 2003

[jim_mich]

Hans and Michael,

If you have a Newton's cradle type of swingable weights consisting of just two weights and one is heavier and one lighter, then they will still bounce back and forth but at different speeds. When the lighter weight impacts the heavier weight then the heavier one bounces off at a slower speed and the lighter weight rebounds backwards at a slower speed. If the heavier weight were to be a solid wall then the lighter weight would rebound at a same speed.

If the weights are the same mass then the moving weight stops while the stationary weight begins to move at a same speed, like a normal Newton's cradle.

If a heavier weight swings against a lighter weight then the lighter weight flies out at a higher speed and the heavier weight slows down but keeps moving.

WM2D does a good job of demonstrating this. Hang the weights using ropes so that they just touch. Set the material of both weights to steel and then set the elasticity to 0.999. Change the 'x' coordinate of one weight by editing it thus causing it to be positioned lifted off to one side.

[rlortie]

Gentleman,

The above posts appear to be describing Newton's cradle based on varying weight mass in motion striking a static one.

Jim__Mich covers it pretty well with his statements;

If the weights are the same mass then the moving weight stops while the stationary weight begins to move at a same speed, like a normal Newton's cradle.

If a heavier weight swings against a lighter weight then the lighter weight flies out at a higher speed and the heavier weight slows down but keeps moving.

To my thinking this does not explain the reality of what Newton states in his three part Laws of Motion. That is to say if both masses are already in motion and the second is traveling at a greater velocity, then the results will be different than impacting a static weight regardless of mass.

I reiterate: " If any force acts on two bodies (in motion) the change in momentum in both of them is the same. The moment of inertia round any axis is defined by the sum of each element of mass of the body, each multiplied by the square of its perpendicular distance from the axis.

I could go on with angular velocity, angular acceleration, angular momentum, ending with torque or angular force impressed.

Sorry but I do not know how to type mathematical text or I would include the equations.

I have however through "hands on" physically research proved to my satisfaction that it is possible to build angular acceleration.

Ralph

[Michael]

Hans could you cite some references that support your argument?

Edit. Here's a web page that covers this discussion and shows a video of a 3 ball setup where 1 outer ball has less mass than the other outer ball. The outcome is logical and fits with what we know about physics.
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/scenario/cradle.htm


Hans, where did you get that incorrect information from?