Pequaide - thank you for your patience in explaining this. I really think you are on to something here. My knowledge of physics isn't as deep as I would like (i'm more of odd mix of engineer/creative type) so I both respect and question the basic axioms of science. I find a lot of the basic axioms are merely solidified opinions, and they should be questioned whenever possible.
The scientific method requires observation & experimentation. Unfortunately, no single person has the resources to prove every axiom to themselves via observation & experimentation, so we have to accept a lot of 'laws' as precepts of a belief system that requires a lot of faith in the suppliers of the information. Constant repetition and peer pressure ensure that our faith in these beliefs don't waver. Until somebody comes along with some new observations and experiments ...
Thank You! Thank You! Thank You! This is the stuff we need - not software models that reinforce the classic solidified opions.
energy producing experiments
Moderator: scott
This is what I think you are saying - please let me know if i've misunderstood something:
A massive flywheel - of any scale - but should have the mass concentrated in the rim (why?).
This flywheel, perfectly balanced, won't rotate, but if we unbalance this with a small weight, it's going to turn.
If we let the small weight fall (connected to the rim of the flywheel) from slightly past 12 o'clock down to 6 o'clock, it will accelerate the flywheel up to speed. It seems to me that a very small mass could rotate a very large mass flywheel - especially if the diameter (hence torque) was relatively large. I guess i've answered my own question as to why the mass should be concentrated in the rim - that would maximise the diameter:mass ratio ...
This is where my physics knowledge isn't strong enough ... are you saying that this flywheel can be accelerated sufficiently by the small mass falling, to the point where the angular momentum of the flywheel (if converted into linear momentum) would be sufficient to raise the small mass higher than the point it fell from ...??
That's what I think you are saying, and it sounds unbelievable and too simple to be true ... but very cool if it is true ...
I've had a few rants here on this forum about the idea of converting angular momentum into linear momentum - the slingshot sort of effect, and then jerking the mass back toward the wheel, creating an overall reactionless mass displacement as the action/reaction of both wheel & mass happens. I've always figured that if a reactionless space drive could be made, it should work in reverse and therefore become a gravity wheel.
What you are describing seems very similar to my way of thinking ... it seems to me that the trick is to convert the angular momentum of the flywheel into a linear thrust that throws the small weight back up again. If this momentum can throw the mass higher that from where it fell - we have a sustaining wheel.
Am I remotely on the right track? (Ignoring conventional physics that would say i'm completely insane ...)
A massive flywheel - of any scale - but should have the mass concentrated in the rim (why?).
This flywheel, perfectly balanced, won't rotate, but if we unbalance this with a small weight, it's going to turn.
If we let the small weight fall (connected to the rim of the flywheel) from slightly past 12 o'clock down to 6 o'clock, it will accelerate the flywheel up to speed. It seems to me that a very small mass could rotate a very large mass flywheel - especially if the diameter (hence torque) was relatively large. I guess i've answered my own question as to why the mass should be concentrated in the rim - that would maximise the diameter:mass ratio ...
This is where my physics knowledge isn't strong enough ... are you saying that this flywheel can be accelerated sufficiently by the small mass falling, to the point where the angular momentum of the flywheel (if converted into linear momentum) would be sufficient to raise the small mass higher than the point it fell from ...??
That's what I think you are saying, and it sounds unbelievable and too simple to be true ... but very cool if it is true ...
I've had a few rants here on this forum about the idea of converting angular momentum into linear momentum - the slingshot sort of effect, and then jerking the mass back toward the wheel, creating an overall reactionless mass displacement as the action/reaction of both wheel & mass happens. I've always figured that if a reactionless space drive could be made, it should work in reverse and therefore become a gravity wheel.
What you are describing seems very similar to my way of thinking ... it seems to me that the trick is to convert the angular momentum of the flywheel into a linear thrust that throws the small weight back up again. If this momentum can throw the mass higher that from where it fell - we have a sustaining wheel.
Am I remotely on the right track? (Ignoring conventional physics that would say i'm completely insane ...)
Pequaide, you need to take into consideration the radius of gyration of the wheel, for that is where the mass of the wheel is centered. Otherwise you are looking at a leveraging effect, where the weights pull on the rim of the wheel at a speed that is faster than the of mass of the wheel that is not located at the rim. Calculating the radius of gyration can be tricky. My Machinery's Handbook has about 24 different formulas depending on the shape of the object being rotated. For instance, if the object being rotated is a solid disk or cylinder then the radius of gyration is 0.70710678 of the radius. (This is half of the square root of Pi.) Determining the radius of gyration (RoG) for a spoke wheel is more complex, but once you understand the concept it can be done. You would need to calculate the RoG of the spokes and the RoG of the rim then merge them mathematically.
If you use the radius of gyration I think you will find your results to be much more accurate.
If you use the radius of gyration I think you will find your results to be much more accurate.
re: energy producing experiments
Thanks Jim. I once used Excel to divide a disk into 100 concentric rings. I calculated the mass and velocity of each ring at a certain rpm. .707 is indeed a significant point in the calculations. The linear momentum of the ring at that point times 100 is equal to the linear momentum of a rim (thin walled ring) with the same radius and the same mass moving at the same radians per second.
Does this mean that a disk is 29.3% more easily rotated than a rim of the same mass and radius? If it does then it would also mean that the disk would have 29.3% less momentum than the rim, if both were moving at the same radians per second. I had calculated that the disk had 67% as much momentum as the rim. Maybe some day I will experiment and find out who is correct.
Greendoor; I think it is best to evaluate rotational motion in terms of linear Newtonian momentum, and leave angular momentum for use with satellites in space.
The acceleration of the dropped mass divided by the standard acceleration of gravity is proportional to the mass dropped divided by the total mass being accelerated. The total mass being accelerated is equal to dropped mass plus the rotational inertial of the wheel.
We know the quantity of mass being dropped (tenth column) and we know standard gravitational acceleration: and the acceleration of the dropped mass can be determined from the final velocity given by the photo gates.
Knowing the distance dropped and the final velocity given by the photo gates we can use the rearranged distance formula (d = 1/2v²/a) to determine the acceleration of the dropped mass (seventh column). We now have all the components necessary to determine the rotational inertia of the wheel; which is in the twelfth column and is call total mass minus dropped mass.
Note that an increase in the dropped mass gives you a proportional increase in the acceleration of the wheel and dropped mass. The ribbon is of course tangent to the surface of the wheel. So this means that a given force F pulling tangent to the surface of the wheel gives you an F = ma relationship for the velocity changes in the wheel.
So if you apply a tangent force for a certain period of time you will get a certain velocity for the particles in the wheel. And if you are to get that velocity back out of the wheel and return the wheel to rest you are going to have to apply equal force (in the opposite direction) for an equal period of time, or twice the force for half the time, or half the force for twice the time etc..
When the steel puck is unwinding from the white disk it is a line tangent to the wheel with a force F that is sufficient to stop both the white disk and the rotating wheel. The force times time relationship in the fishing line must be equal to the force times time relationship in the ribbon that started the motion. But the force in the fishing line is not just an F = ma relationship that is working on the wheel, it is also working on the puck.
Newton’s Third Law of Motion tells us that the momentum change in the wheel must be equal to the momentum change in the puck. The above experiment proves that the momentum change in the wheel is linear Newtonian momentum, and the momentum change in the puck must be linear Newtonian momentum. If the wheel and white disk and the puck have six times as much inertia as the puck then the puck must be moving six times as fast when the puck has all the motion. This is an energy increase. All data collected thus far has confirmed that this energy increase does occur and that Newtonian physics is correct.
Does this mean that a disk is 29.3% more easily rotated than a rim of the same mass and radius? If it does then it would also mean that the disk would have 29.3% less momentum than the rim, if both were moving at the same radians per second. I had calculated that the disk had 67% as much momentum as the rim. Maybe some day I will experiment and find out who is correct.
Greendoor; I think it is best to evaluate rotational motion in terms of linear Newtonian momentum, and leave angular momentum for use with satellites in space.
The acceleration of the dropped mass divided by the standard acceleration of gravity is proportional to the mass dropped divided by the total mass being accelerated. The total mass being accelerated is equal to dropped mass plus the rotational inertial of the wheel.
We know the quantity of mass being dropped (tenth column) and we know standard gravitational acceleration: and the acceleration of the dropped mass can be determined from the final velocity given by the photo gates.
Knowing the distance dropped and the final velocity given by the photo gates we can use the rearranged distance formula (d = 1/2v²/a) to determine the acceleration of the dropped mass (seventh column). We now have all the components necessary to determine the rotational inertia of the wheel; which is in the twelfth column and is call total mass minus dropped mass.
Note that an increase in the dropped mass gives you a proportional increase in the acceleration of the wheel and dropped mass. The ribbon is of course tangent to the surface of the wheel. So this means that a given force F pulling tangent to the surface of the wheel gives you an F = ma relationship for the velocity changes in the wheel.
So if you apply a tangent force for a certain period of time you will get a certain velocity for the particles in the wheel. And if you are to get that velocity back out of the wheel and return the wheel to rest you are going to have to apply equal force (in the opposite direction) for an equal period of time, or twice the force for half the time, or half the force for twice the time etc..
When the steel puck is unwinding from the white disk it is a line tangent to the wheel with a force F that is sufficient to stop both the white disk and the rotating wheel. The force times time relationship in the fishing line must be equal to the force times time relationship in the ribbon that started the motion. But the force in the fishing line is not just an F = ma relationship that is working on the wheel, it is also working on the puck.
Newton’s Third Law of Motion tells us that the momentum change in the wheel must be equal to the momentum change in the puck. The above experiment proves that the momentum change in the wheel is linear Newtonian momentum, and the momentum change in the puck must be linear Newtonian momentum. If the wheel and white disk and the puck have six times as much inertia as the puck then the puck must be moving six times as fast when the puck has all the motion. This is an energy increase. All data collected thus far has confirmed that this energy increase does occur and that Newtonian physics is correct.
- Attachments
-
- different masses dropped from ribbon
-
georgexbailey
- Enthusiast
- Posts: 26
- Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2008 1:49 pm
re: energy producing experiments
@greendoor
Let me give my take on it... Let's define three "wheels" in his setup. (1) is the big gray wheel, we'll call it the Big Wheel. (2) is the small white wheel, we'll call it the White Wheel. (3) is the smallest of the three wheels. It is grey and we'll call it the Puck.
Pequaide, please correct me if I am wrong..
The Big Wheel is just a drive wheel. The red ribbon is a drive belt. The Big Wheel is accelerated by attaching a weight to the end of the red ribbon. The weight is dropped and this pulls the red ribbon around the White Wheel which accelerates it. The Puck is attached to the White Wheel with a fishing line. As the White Wheel turns the Puck flies out away from the White Wheel until the fishing line is extended out at it's maximum length.
Now, this is where it gets hazy...At this point, I think, the Puck has received all of the momentum from the setup and the Puck has enough momentum to raise the weight that was attached to the red ribbon higher than it was dropped.
My understanding is that the fishing line attached to the White Wheel and the Puck is allowing the Puck to receive all of the momentum of the Big Wheel and the White Wheel. Kind of like a slingshot. I don't quite understand this and I may be wrong in that assumption.
If this is correct, then as pequaide has said, this is a major discovery to say the least. Pequaide has been posting regarding this for well over a year. We really need to create an experiment that shows the "reset" of the weight in a higher position. I posted on overunity.com and he said he has already proven the concept and an engineer should get involved at this time to build the device.
I don't understand the math, that is not my forte, but it seems with all of the other ideas that have been attempted, this is a good as any. Does anyone agree? How about we design a machine based on his concepts? Any ideas?
pequaid, is my description above correct?
GB
Let me give my take on it... Let's define three "wheels" in his setup. (1) is the big gray wheel, we'll call it the Big Wheel. (2) is the small white wheel, we'll call it the White Wheel. (3) is the smallest of the three wheels. It is grey and we'll call it the Puck.
Pequaide, please correct me if I am wrong..
The Big Wheel is just a drive wheel. The red ribbon is a drive belt. The Big Wheel is accelerated by attaching a weight to the end of the red ribbon. The weight is dropped and this pulls the red ribbon around the White Wheel which accelerates it. The Puck is attached to the White Wheel with a fishing line. As the White Wheel turns the Puck flies out away from the White Wheel until the fishing line is extended out at it's maximum length.
Now, this is where it gets hazy...At this point, I think, the Puck has received all of the momentum from the setup and the Puck has enough momentum to raise the weight that was attached to the red ribbon higher than it was dropped.
My understanding is that the fishing line attached to the White Wheel and the Puck is allowing the Puck to receive all of the momentum of the Big Wheel and the White Wheel. Kind of like a slingshot. I don't quite understand this and I may be wrong in that assumption.
If this is correct, then as pequaide has said, this is a major discovery to say the least. Pequaide has been posting regarding this for well over a year. We really need to create an experiment that shows the "reset" of the weight in a higher position. I posted on overunity.com and he said he has already proven the concept and an engineer should get involved at this time to build the device.
I don't understand the math, that is not my forte, but it seems with all of the other ideas that have been attempted, this is a good as any. Does anyone agree? How about we design a machine based on his concepts? Any ideas?
pequaid, is my description above correct?
GB
re: energy producing experiments
George: your description is correct. It is possible to view the puck as in a wheel but it is the only mass in that wheel and its radius changes until the fishing line unwraps beyond tangent. And until the white disk stops the puck has a moving point of rotation. There is nothing wrong with that of course, lots of wheel have moving points of rotation. The target position is where the white disk is stopped, and at that point the puck has a stationary point of rotation (on the edge of the white disk) and a constant radius.
I have begged and paid people to post videos but I can get no one to post. We have been upgrading our own system, so maybe I will try it again.
I live in the U.S.A.
I placed another column in the Excel spreadsheet where I mathematically divided a disk into 100 concentric rings. The new column was the product of the radius column times the linear momentum column. This column then is the angular momentum column. The sum of all the angular momentums (sum(G2:G101) in this column is 986.9, but if all the mass of the disk were in the outermost ring the angular momentum would be 1954. This is 986.9 / 1954 = .5050. I would take this to mean that a disk should have 50.5% of the inertia of a rim of equal mass and radius. Jim’s hand book picked .7070 to be the radius of gyration not .5050. If the radius of gyration is the predicted point of average inertia then it corresponds to linear Newtonian momentum more closely than it does to angular momentum.
The disk with two air table pucks on a frictionless plane might be the easiest experiment to make. It is pictures in overunity but I could repost that picture if anyone needs it.
I have begged and paid people to post videos but I can get no one to post. We have been upgrading our own system, so maybe I will try it again.
I live in the U.S.A.
I placed another column in the Excel spreadsheet where I mathematically divided a disk into 100 concentric rings. The new column was the product of the radius column times the linear momentum column. This column then is the angular momentum column. The sum of all the angular momentums (sum(G2:G101) in this column is 986.9, but if all the mass of the disk were in the outermost ring the angular momentum would be 1954. This is 986.9 / 1954 = .5050. I would take this to mean that a disk should have 50.5% of the inertia of a rim of equal mass and radius. Jim’s hand book picked .7070 to be the radius of gyration not .5050. If the radius of gyration is the predicted point of average inertia then it corresponds to linear Newtonian momentum more closely than it does to angular momentum.
The disk with two air table pucks on a frictionless plane might be the easiest experiment to make. It is pictures in overunity but I could repost that picture if anyone needs it.
re: energy producing experiments
This experiment was conducted on a frictionless plane. Two strings are used to hold the pucks in place until you have the system spinning. You hold the strings up against the small center wall as you spin the system with your fingers (or mechanically). Upon release the pucks swing out on the end of the other strings and quickly stop the center white disk. With a little practice you can then pull a center pin (not the screwdriver pictures) and release the other two strings. This leaves the white disk stopped and the two pucks moving in two straight lines independent of the white disk.
This is a totally different experiment than the one george calls the three wheels. But I thought it would help explain how the system works. As the pucks or puck (with bearing system) swings out they or it can stop the disk or wheel(s) or cylinder etc..
This is a totally different experiment than the one george calls the three wheels. But I thought it would help explain how the system works. As the pucks or puck (with bearing system) swings out they or it can stop the disk or wheel(s) or cylinder etc..
- Attachments
-
- on dining table
re: energy producing experiments
I ask the same question I posted five pages ago, what does this have to to do with a self-sustaining wheel and what is it you want people to film and post a video of?George: your description is correct. It is possible to view the puck as in a wheel but it is the only mass in that wheel and its radius changes until the fishing line unwraps beyond tangent. And until the white disk stops the puck has a moving point of rotation. There is nothing wrong with that of course, lots of wheel have moving points of rotation. The target position is where the white disk is stopped, and at that point the puck has a stationary point of rotation (on the edge of the white disk) and a constant radius.
I have begged and paid people to post videos but I can get no one to post. We have been upgrading our own system, so maybe I will try it again.
Ralph
DAILY THOUGHT:
SOME PEOPLE ARE LIKE SLINKIES - NOT REALLY GOOD FOR ANYTHING BUT THEY BRING A SMILE TO YOUR FACE WHEN PUSHED DOWN THE STAIRS
Don't underestimate the value that pequaide brings to this forum. He has been most generous sharing these profound insights into what I consider to be the most probable source of Besseler wheel power.
He has consistently given the same story, and explains everything (even his reluctance to supply video) if you actually what he is saying ... also, checkout this thread over at Overunity where he gives more valuable information:
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=1995.0;wap
We all have skills and limitations in various areas. We all have limited resources and patience. For example - I'm experiencing 'Password Burnout' and I just can't bring myself to register for Yahoo and have a look at that Laithwaite Figure 7 drawing - I really want to, and I just tried to register, but i've had a gutsful of passwords and crap its not going to happen ...
Show some respect for Science, and listen to what Pequaide is saying - he is taking up the sword of the late great Eric Laithwaite, and this should never be forgotten.
Bear in mind that if there is any truth in this theory, there will be people in this forum actively trying to derail this thread.
He has consistently given the same story, and explains everything (even his reluctance to supply video) if you actually what he is saying ... also, checkout this thread over at Overunity where he gives more valuable information:
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=1995.0;wap
We all have skills and limitations in various areas. We all have limited resources and patience. For example - I'm experiencing 'Password Burnout' and I just can't bring myself to register for Yahoo and have a look at that Laithwaite Figure 7 drawing - I really want to, and I just tried to register, but i've had a gutsful of passwords and crap its not going to happen ...
Show some respect for Science, and listen to what Pequaide is saying - he is taking up the sword of the late great Eric Laithwaite, and this should never be forgotten.
Bear in mind that if there is any truth in this theory, there will be people in this forum actively trying to derail this thread.
Clear you minds and forget everything for a moment - then focus on this statement:
I will be very interested in valid scientific arguments to agree or disagree with this statement. But ultimately, this simple statement is provable only by experiment (and a fairly simply one at that).
Nothing else matters - IMO.
If this is true, then we have Bessler's secret. Look no further. IF this is true.A 9 kg Atwood, with one kg of imbalance, can produce 14.007 units of momentum from what costs 4.429 units of momentum to achieve. One kg in a 1 meter freefall has a final velocity of 4.429 m/sec, but after it has fallen the same distance on the machine it has a velocity of 1.4007 m/sec (* 10 kg) for 14.007 units of momentum. It only takes 4.429 units of momentum to return the one kilogram mass to the top, to start over.
I will be very interested in valid scientific arguments to agree or disagree with this statement. But ultimately, this simple statement is provable only by experiment (and a fairly simply one at that).
Nothing else matters - IMO.
re: energy producing experiments
Greendoor,
I am willing to experiment, in fact that is my forte... Trial and error hands on building IMO is the only way Bessler's secret will be revealed.
But first I must have a concept to analyze and understand how it can be utilized in a wheel or drum. This is why I keep asking; 'What do you want?'
We now have five pages of rhetoric concerning spinning, swinging and falling disks with a lot of philosophy and impressive math debate, but I have yet to see a way to utilize it in a real build. That is all I am asking for.
Your Atwood quote may or may not be Bessler's secret, but you are not going to have objective proof until it is tested in the real world.
Simply talking about it and pleading for help on something that is not explained or displayed is like asking: Here is and idea, show me how to use it.
Ralph
I am willing to experiment, in fact that is my forte... Trial and error hands on building IMO is the only way Bessler's secret will be revealed.
But first I must have a concept to analyze and understand how it can be utilized in a wheel or drum. This is why I keep asking; 'What do you want?'
We now have five pages of rhetoric concerning spinning, swinging and falling disks with a lot of philosophy and impressive math debate, but I have yet to see a way to utilize it in a real build. That is all I am asking for.
Your Atwood quote may or may not be Bessler's secret, but you are not going to have objective proof until it is tested in the real world.
Simply talking about it and pleading for help on something that is not explained or displayed is like asking: Here is and idea, show me how to use it.
If it is so simple then give us a blue print I can interpret, if it looks viable I will build it!I will be very interested in valid scientific arguments to agree or disagree with this statement. But ultimately, this simple statement is provable only by experiment (and a fairly simply one at that).
Ralph
re: energy producing experiments
Pequaide .. are you able to design your concept into a wheel or perhaps a reciprocating pendulum environment ?
If so then it appears Ralph will build it & he is quite capable of doing that, probably better than most - if not then perhaps design collectively an experiment that can reset itself to show the anomaly & perhaps he could build that as proof of concept - personally I would like to see some independent testing of the concept, not that I don't believe you, but simply that any theory put into practice must be able to be replicated & be repeatable & this would prove that aspect.
Ralph's build of your concept would advance everybody's understanding of what you are advocating & that just might lead to an OU self sustaining wheel, if it can indeed be reset without additional energy input ?!
Just possible suggestions on how to proceed from here.
If so then it appears Ralph will build it & he is quite capable of doing that, probably better than most - if not then perhaps design collectively an experiment that can reset itself to show the anomaly & perhaps he could build that as proof of concept - personally I would like to see some independent testing of the concept, not that I don't believe you, but simply that any theory put into practice must be able to be replicated & be repeatable & this would prove that aspect.
Ralph's build of your concept would advance everybody's understanding of what you are advocating & that just might lead to an OU self sustaining wheel, if it can indeed be reset without additional energy input ?!
Just possible suggestions on how to proceed from here.