This one is probably more of interest to broli - see screen shot - it is a basic lift test sim - at 7.4 seconds I apply a 15 Newton force [arbitrary amount of force] to stop the wheel - it takes until 10.127 seconds to stop it [this is past 6 o'cl I know], but to get a very rapid stop after letting it accelerate for as long as possible was almost ridiculous [~ 40N's sent it into low earth orbit] i.e. a very large force for a very short amount of time & distance, to reduce the motion/mv to zero at 6 o'cl - that exact same force [a fake force] is then replicated beneath an equivalent weight on a sliding pivot in a vertical lift test - at these figures it throws it to about 27.5 meters [starting from a datum of -2 meters] i.e. ~ 30 meters.
I have been trying to build bucket systems & paddle wheels, ramps & elevators etc that can capture & transmit that stopping force [i.e. the momentum of the wheel] to physically lift a 1 kg yellow weight up as high as possible [or multiple weights to a hopper arrangement etc - think uncle's toy] - every time I use kinematic collisions in an attempt to transfer mv [as per pequaide & greendoor] the ompf is gone out of it & the ideal 100% efficient lift test results disappear up in smoke - well, so far anyway - perhaps broli [whose pretty shrewd] can design something - the problem must be that I'm not a first year engineering student ;7)
P.S. wheel virually massless - 0.0001 kg's - yellow driver 1 kg - blue rim weights 50 kg's - force 15 N's - no air resistance - defaults values - accuracy 4 decimal places - iteration step 0.001 cm's - frames 300 per sec
energy producing experiments
Moderator: scott
re: energy producing experiments
- Attachments
-
- Lift Test2.wm2d
- Lift Test 2 sim
- (14.43 KiB) Downloaded 173 times
-
- mv Lift Test_Screen Shot
re: energy producing experiments
Well; what have you told your computer to do? Did you tell it to conserve linear Newtonian momentum or has the programmer told it to conserve something else.
You have 6 one kilogram masses moving in a straight line at one meter per second. You take all the motion of those six masses and give it to one of those masses. Ask your computer what is conserved.
You have 6 one kilogram masses moving in a straight line at one meter per second. You take all the motion of those six masses and give it to one of those masses. Ask your computer what is conserved.
re: energy producing experiments
Here is a simple ramp test & paddles - I gave up on fancy elevators & paddle drives, one-way clutch bearings, hoppers releasing balls etc - the conclusion I draw from this is that even when using simple paddles they don't transfer all their momentum to the rolling weight & continue to follow thru behind the ball [this is what tends to happen in the real world when levers engage other levers etc i.e. they continue to have some momentum left in them, as far as I'm aware] - if anyone knows a way for a complete/dead stop transfer I'm all ears & this would be the secret to unlocking pequaides potential energy source, IMO] - the rolling weight can't get up to its starting height [according to the program pequaide].
Put your thinking caps on guys, to come up with a better way for complete momentum transfer ! One where preferable the flywheel stops dead having imparted all it momentum to the ball weight [oh yeah, hitting a stop bar doesn't really help - we want it to have depleted itself in the shortest time possible & then let the ball go at or about 6 o'cl, but not past it otherwise gravity is robbing the system on the upswing].
Put your thinking caps on guys, to come up with a better way for complete momentum transfer ! One where preferable the flywheel stops dead having imparted all it momentum to the ball weight [oh yeah, hitting a stop bar doesn't really help - we want it to have depleted itself in the shortest time possible & then let the ball go at or about 6 o'cl, but not past it otherwise gravity is robbing the system on the upswing].
- Attachments
-
- Lift Test4.wm2d
- Lift Test 4 - ramp & paddles
- (26.02 KiB) Downloaded 167 times
-
- Finish
-
- Start
Re: re: energy producing experiments
Broli could take greendoor's idea & build a very big radius wheel [massless], say 10 meters & release the drive weight from 3 o'cl - start stopping it [transferring momentum] after only traveling a short distance, say 4 o'cl - have a paddle lift a corresponding weight from a hopper at say 8 o'cl, trying to get it to 9 o'cl - that would be a reasonable approximation of linear momentum [radius to infinity] pequiade, I should say !pequaide wrote:Well; what have you told your computer to do? Did you tell it to conserve linear Newtonian momentum or has the programmer told it to conserve something else.
You have 6 one kilogram masses moving in a straight line at one meter per second. You take all the motion of those six masses and give it to one of those masses. Ask your computer what is conserved.
re: energy producing experiments
Mount your flywheel horizontally and you will not need to worry about where the small mass is released.
If a rotating flywheel has a string wrapped around its circumference, and a small mass is placed on the end of the string, the mass and string will naturally unwrap from the flywheel and the flywheel will stop dead.
Fletcher says he is all ears “if anyone knows a way for a complete/dead stop transfer I'm all ears & this would be the secret to unlocking pequaides potential energy source, IMO].
Is he all ears?
If a rotating flywheel has a string wrapped around its circumference, and a small mass is placed on the end of the string, the mass and string will naturally unwrap from the flywheel and the flywheel will stop dead.
Fletcher says he is all ears “if anyone knows a way for a complete/dead stop transfer I'm all ears & this would be the secret to unlocking pequaides potential energy source, IMO].
Is he all ears?
re: energy producing experiments
I'll guess we'll find out when the suggestions come rolling in to you pequiade !
In a horizontal application of the yo-yo de-spin you naturally have to wind the weight & string back in again [reset the device].
In a horizontal application of the yo-yo de-spin you naturally have to wind the weight & string back in again [reset the device].
re: energy producing experiments
Why do you want to use such a large radius wheel (10 meters)? I have never used a wheel over .25 meters radius. And you don't mention releasing the mass. Of course your last arrangement will not work you don't do anything I ask you to do.
Fletcher is not describing the same machines I describe and build. He is not listening at all.
Fletcher is not describing the same machines I describe and build. He is not listening at all.
re: energy producing experiments
hmmm .. suggested 10 meters because a small drop vertically in height is almost a straight line [re linear momentum] - because to be self sustaining a device must be able to reset itself - cutting away the mass, whether in a horizontal or vertical alignment, is not really an option for a self sustaining machine - works in space though !
re: energy producing experiments
The moving mass of the flywheel is where you store your momentum. You don’t want to make a flywheel with no mass, I use cylinders (flywheel) with mass between 3 to 9 times the mass of the smaller overbalanced mass. This means that when the cylinder is stopped (dead) the velocity of the spheres is 4 to 10 times the original velocity of the cylinder with spheres embedded.
re: energy producing experiments
Yes, I appreciate that but for simplicity sake in modeling the basic principle in WM you can make the flywheel any mass you want, but then it has different inertia characteristics depending on the mass distribution - so when its moving it will have a combination of translational & rotational Ke summing to total Ke N.B. its momentum will also depend on those inertia characteristics - in this case I simply made the blue weights contain all the mass [50 kg's each, like the atwoods example] - you can then shift them in or out to any radius you want - adding the driver weight turns it into a pendulum & the distance between the blue weights controls how fast or slow the pendulum falls [like Besslers Kassel pendulum drawings].
In the first example where I used a fake force in the lift test it backs up what you say - no argument from me there - but that is unrealistic cause it assumes all the force available to stop the flywheel dead is available to lift a similar weight as high as possible, with no losses, so its absolutely optimal.
But, according to the models I did [others may have different results], as soon as you actually try & apply the momentum of the flywheel, after the drive weight has lost height & accelerated it, to lift another similar weight, by leverage &/or percussion principles, it doesn't seem to be able to do it - part of the reason seems to be that to get a complete transfer of momentum very efficiently you have to let the driver accelerate for as long as possible [to get as much velocity into the flywheel as possible], then it has to come to a dead stop in the shortest time & distance practical - then all that energy has to get transferred to the mass that needs to rise up.
Now I also appreciate what you've been saying about the yo-yo de-spin device & a small weight winding out can cause the flywheel to stop rotating - that might be an expected effect - broli did the sims where the weight changed radius to slow the flywheel - so its a method of stopping or majorly slowing rotation - in space you can cut the tether & let the stabilizing weight float away - in an earth bound environment where you are attempting to create OU & have a drive weight fall a short distance to lift an equivalent weight a much farther distance then effectively you are raising the potential of the system - that's particularly hard to quantify if the drive weight is not the one being lifted to higher potential [or its hard to sum the individual components] - there ought to be a practical way to use that energy to get the same drive weight back to the top/start position, if the theory is valid.
It may be that the math supports the argument but there is no practical way to translate that math to reality, & keep the system intact & repeatable - perhaps some clever member will think up a way !
These are just my opinions !
In the first example where I used a fake force in the lift test it backs up what you say - no argument from me there - but that is unrealistic cause it assumes all the force available to stop the flywheel dead is available to lift a similar weight as high as possible, with no losses, so its absolutely optimal.
But, according to the models I did [others may have different results], as soon as you actually try & apply the momentum of the flywheel, after the drive weight has lost height & accelerated it, to lift another similar weight, by leverage &/or percussion principles, it doesn't seem to be able to do it - part of the reason seems to be that to get a complete transfer of momentum very efficiently you have to let the driver accelerate for as long as possible [to get as much velocity into the flywheel as possible], then it has to come to a dead stop in the shortest time & distance practical - then all that energy has to get transferred to the mass that needs to rise up.
Now I also appreciate what you've been saying about the yo-yo de-spin device & a small weight winding out can cause the flywheel to stop rotating - that might be an expected effect - broli did the sims where the weight changed radius to slow the flywheel - so its a method of stopping or majorly slowing rotation - in space you can cut the tether & let the stabilizing weight float away - in an earth bound environment where you are attempting to create OU & have a drive weight fall a short distance to lift an equivalent weight a much farther distance then effectively you are raising the potential of the system - that's particularly hard to quantify if the drive weight is not the one being lifted to higher potential [or its hard to sum the individual components] - there ought to be a practical way to use that energy to get the same drive weight back to the top/start position, if the theory is valid.
It may be that the math supports the argument but there is no practical way to translate that math to reality, & keep the system intact & repeatable - perhaps some clever member will think up a way !
These are just my opinions !
re: energy producing experiments
Two identical metal balls are dropped from the same height using an electromagnetic release. One ball is dropped freely, while the other hangs from a string, acting as a simple pendulum. Using two photogates, we see that the vertical velocity of the dropped ball is identical to the horizontal velocity of the pendulum, measured at the same height. Potential energy has been converted to kinetic energy equally in both cases.
Watch the original video on MIT TechTV - http://techtv.mit.edu/videos/1491-pot...
Watch the original video on MIT TechTV - http://techtv.mit.edu/videos/1491-pot...
re: energy producing experiments
Fletcher & Pequaide - if I could step in as referee for a moment ...
Pequaide - I can see your frustration, but I don't think Fletcher is trying to annoy you or pervert your concept. We are all using the tools and experience we have to try to understand something that has been a mystery for centuries. The ideas you are proposing are very hard for trained engineers to wrap their head around, because it is questioning some deeply entrenched thought patterns. People less educated and experienced in conventional physics, like myself, may have less to undo.
Fletcher - I believe Pequaide is frustrated because he has been describing in great detail (and with experimental results) an exact method for bringing a mass with momentum to a complete halt. The Yo-yo de-spin device is exactly a method to transfer momentum efficiently, and achieve the big increase in velocity that demonstrates the Kinetic Energy numbers to those who are addicted to V^2 biased KE numbers.
I like the word "oomph". I've been thinking of using it myself. Because a heavy but slow turning flywheel has plenty of "oomph". Even if a lighter, faster flywheel calculates to higher Kinetic Energy numbers - does it necessarily have more "oomph"? If the lighter, faster flywheel has less Momentum, but higher Energy (as calculated) - which one really has the most "oomph"?
Classically trained physicists will immediately jump to the conclusion that Energy is the Be all and End all. But is this necessarily so? How many people have actually done the experiements that Pequaide is doing? Honestly?
The origins of E = 0.5V^2 have a murky history. I'm no great history scholar, but I recall it has something to do with dropping weights into clay and measuring penetration. I can think of many, many variables that would affect that kind of experiment. And for this reason, the results were debated for years before E = 0.5V^2 was deemed valid.
Slightly OT - but I have a half-baked thought about this:
Making an analogy to Electric power. Velocity seems similar to Voltage (Force of Stuff, and Mass seems similar to Current (Amount of Stuff). Very loosely - don't shoot me just yet).
This "oomph" of moving stuff is obviously proportional to the amount of stuff, and the force of the stuff. With electricity we say that the "oomph" of electricity is Power measured in Watts, and is the product of Volts and Amps. P = VA. Simple and intuitive.
The "oomph" of moving mass can be considered as Momentum, being the product of Velocity and Mass. P = MV. Simple & Intuitive.
[Before I get crucified for mixing up physics Units all over the place - I'm trying to explain a thought process about how these Units were derived, and why maybe there a potential flaws in the use of them - please put rabid knee jerk responses on hold until I can make my point ...]
Let's say that back in history somebody wanted to define the "oomph" of Electricity. Let's say they could measure Voltage, and could measure Current, but were trying to develop the concept of Power. We know it's possible to have high voltage with no "ooph" due to little current. We know it's possible to have high current with little "oomph" due to low voltage. So how to measure electrical "oomph"?
We could perhaps devise a rupture test, where an electric spark could punch a hole in some paper. The more voltage, and the more current, the more layers of paper and the bigger the hole the spark would rupture. In this fictional re-write of history - we could imagine a concept of Electrical energy being developed around such a spark test. But obviously, this is not an ideal measurement of electrical "oomph". Maybe in time some scientists would consider that increasing Volts gave a bigger result in this "oomph" test, and therefore some factor was necessary to apply to Voltage. Maybe somebody suggested Squaring Voltage. But maybe the experiemental evidence didn't support full Squaring. So maybe somebody fudged things a bit and suggest 1/2 Squared Voltage ...
You get the picture - and obviously in hindsight, we know that this would be crazy.
Now back to Kinetic Energy. Is measuring the "oomph" of a moving mass really best measured in a clay penetration test? Isn't this about as crazy as my above electrical example?
I am thinking that in a clay penetration experiment, it is going to be biased to favour Velocity. No mass can literally move at Velocity Squared. Or Half Velocity Squared for that matter. So this is becoming a mathematical game, rather than a representation of reality.
Transformation. Both electrical oomph and kinetic oomph can be transformed rather neatly. Using an electrical transformer, we know that we can convert low volts to high volts, with a corresponding tradeoff in current. But Power is conserved. Using machines, we can convert low velocity into high velocity, with a corresponding tradeoff in mass. But momentum is conserved.
Lets say that historically, somebody devised an electrical "oomph" test based on a paper rupture test. Let's say that Half Amps times Voltage Squared was the empirical formula that was decided on. As soon as transformers were invented, it would have become quite apparant that this formula could not possibly be correct. Even though the experimental paper test results worked pretty well - the flaw would be that "ooph" could be transformed to a higher voltage (with admittedly less amps) and get a higher value in the paper rupture test.
At that stage, we would have to admit that the paper rupture test was not a valid measure of electrical "oomph" - and we would have to look for some other test.
What i'm suggesting is that there could be a similar situation with Kinetic Energy.
Let's face it - the numbers do not add up. There is something a little fishy here. We cannot argue (with a straight face) that both Momentum and Kinetic Energy are Conserved quantities.
The issue is fudged. For sure. Newtons Cradle - when transfering the momentum of a large ball to a small ball (like that movie clip with the balls above).
If we can transform Momentum into higher velocity with lower mass (and we can), then the E = 0.5MV^2 numbers go up. It's just a numbers game. We know that the final Momentum is actually lower than the input, due to losses. So what gives with KE as a concept?
I know that this is a major stretch for trained scientists to even consider that the Emperors New Clothes might be a little transparent at this point ... but what is that thing sticking out there?
I'm aware that this particular numbers game can be made to work for some situations. Particularly considering falling weights, which are uniformly accelerating from zero. And in real world terms, this is a fairly common situation, and a relatively useful yardstick of "doing stuff". So there is a whole range of machines where E = 0.5MV^2 accurately describes the situation.
But then there is Bessler. And a few other whackos who allegedely broke the rules. Naughty. But then then, maybe these rules were made to be broken?
I'm sorry if this has offended you. Science is like a religion, and sacred beliefs are cherished dearly by the faithfull. I know i'm a heretic, daring to walk where angels fear to tread. Maybe i've got it all wrong. But I hope that maybe someone can see what i'm seeing, and maybe find something in it.
Pequaide - I can see your frustration, but I don't think Fletcher is trying to annoy you or pervert your concept. We are all using the tools and experience we have to try to understand something that has been a mystery for centuries. The ideas you are proposing are very hard for trained engineers to wrap their head around, because it is questioning some deeply entrenched thought patterns. People less educated and experienced in conventional physics, like myself, may have less to undo.
Fletcher - I believe Pequaide is frustrated because he has been describing in great detail (and with experimental results) an exact method for bringing a mass with momentum to a complete halt. The Yo-yo de-spin device is exactly a method to transfer momentum efficiently, and achieve the big increase in velocity that demonstrates the Kinetic Energy numbers to those who are addicted to V^2 biased KE numbers.
I like the word "oomph". I've been thinking of using it myself. Because a heavy but slow turning flywheel has plenty of "oomph". Even if a lighter, faster flywheel calculates to higher Kinetic Energy numbers - does it necessarily have more "oomph"? If the lighter, faster flywheel has less Momentum, but higher Energy (as calculated) - which one really has the most "oomph"?
Classically trained physicists will immediately jump to the conclusion that Energy is the Be all and End all. But is this necessarily so? How many people have actually done the experiements that Pequaide is doing? Honestly?
The origins of E = 0.5V^2 have a murky history. I'm no great history scholar, but I recall it has something to do with dropping weights into clay and measuring penetration. I can think of many, many variables that would affect that kind of experiment. And for this reason, the results were debated for years before E = 0.5V^2 was deemed valid.
Slightly OT - but I have a half-baked thought about this:
Making an analogy to Electric power. Velocity seems similar to Voltage (Force of Stuff, and Mass seems similar to Current (Amount of Stuff). Very loosely - don't shoot me just yet).
This "oomph" of moving stuff is obviously proportional to the amount of stuff, and the force of the stuff. With electricity we say that the "oomph" of electricity is Power measured in Watts, and is the product of Volts and Amps. P = VA. Simple and intuitive.
The "oomph" of moving mass can be considered as Momentum, being the product of Velocity and Mass. P = MV. Simple & Intuitive.
[Before I get crucified for mixing up physics Units all over the place - I'm trying to explain a thought process about how these Units were derived, and why maybe there a potential flaws in the use of them - please put rabid knee jerk responses on hold until I can make my point ...]
Let's say that back in history somebody wanted to define the "oomph" of Electricity. Let's say they could measure Voltage, and could measure Current, but were trying to develop the concept of Power. We know it's possible to have high voltage with no "ooph" due to little current. We know it's possible to have high current with little "oomph" due to low voltage. So how to measure electrical "oomph"?
We could perhaps devise a rupture test, where an electric spark could punch a hole in some paper. The more voltage, and the more current, the more layers of paper and the bigger the hole the spark would rupture. In this fictional re-write of history - we could imagine a concept of Electrical energy being developed around such a spark test. But obviously, this is not an ideal measurement of electrical "oomph". Maybe in time some scientists would consider that increasing Volts gave a bigger result in this "oomph" test, and therefore some factor was necessary to apply to Voltage. Maybe somebody suggested Squaring Voltage. But maybe the experiemental evidence didn't support full Squaring. So maybe somebody fudged things a bit and suggest 1/2 Squared Voltage ...
You get the picture - and obviously in hindsight, we know that this would be crazy.
Now back to Kinetic Energy. Is measuring the "oomph" of a moving mass really best measured in a clay penetration test? Isn't this about as crazy as my above electrical example?
I am thinking that in a clay penetration experiment, it is going to be biased to favour Velocity. No mass can literally move at Velocity Squared. Or Half Velocity Squared for that matter. So this is becoming a mathematical game, rather than a representation of reality.
Transformation. Both electrical oomph and kinetic oomph can be transformed rather neatly. Using an electrical transformer, we know that we can convert low volts to high volts, with a corresponding tradeoff in current. But Power is conserved. Using machines, we can convert low velocity into high velocity, with a corresponding tradeoff in mass. But momentum is conserved.
Lets say that historically, somebody devised an electrical "oomph" test based on a paper rupture test. Let's say that Half Amps times Voltage Squared was the empirical formula that was decided on. As soon as transformers were invented, it would have become quite apparant that this formula could not possibly be correct. Even though the experimental paper test results worked pretty well - the flaw would be that "ooph" could be transformed to a higher voltage (with admittedly less amps) and get a higher value in the paper rupture test.
At that stage, we would have to admit that the paper rupture test was not a valid measure of electrical "oomph" - and we would have to look for some other test.
What i'm suggesting is that there could be a similar situation with Kinetic Energy.
Let's face it - the numbers do not add up. There is something a little fishy here. We cannot argue (with a straight face) that both Momentum and Kinetic Energy are Conserved quantities.
The issue is fudged. For sure. Newtons Cradle - when transfering the momentum of a large ball to a small ball (like that movie clip with the balls above).
If we can transform Momentum into higher velocity with lower mass (and we can), then the E = 0.5MV^2 numbers go up. It's just a numbers game. We know that the final Momentum is actually lower than the input, due to losses. So what gives with KE as a concept?
I know that this is a major stretch for trained scientists to even consider that the Emperors New Clothes might be a little transparent at this point ... but what is that thing sticking out there?
I'm aware that this particular numbers game can be made to work for some situations. Particularly considering falling weights, which are uniformly accelerating from zero. And in real world terms, this is a fairly common situation, and a relatively useful yardstick of "doing stuff". So there is a whole range of machines where E = 0.5MV^2 accurately describes the situation.
But then there is Bessler. And a few other whackos who allegedely broke the rules. Naughty. But then then, maybe these rules were made to be broken?
I'm sorry if this has offended you. Science is like a religion, and sacred beliefs are cherished dearly by the faithfull. I know i'm a heretic, daring to walk where angels fear to tread. Maybe i've got it all wrong. But I hope that maybe someone can see what i'm seeing, and maybe find something in it.
Anything not related to elephants is irrelephant.
Re: re: energy producing experiments
So Fletcher - just to clarify - have we convinced you in the validity of "Pequaide A" as a means of accumulating momentum?Fletcher wrote:It may be that the math supports the argument but there is no practical way to translate that math to reality, & keep the system intact & repeatable - perhaps some clever member will think up a way !
These are just my opinions !
It seems we have moved on to "Peqaide B" - which is a whole different subject. Little point exploring this if we are not yet convinced about "Pequaide A" ...
It's my belief that Bessler in his Apologia is describing his clever system for doing this. Hint: Cats, Mice & Dogs ... I believe in hindsight his analogy will be very clear.
Frankly - I don't think he used a Yo-Yo despin device. That doesn't invalidate "Pequaide B" at all - I just think there are more than one way to take useable energy out of a Gravity Powered Momentum Accumulator.
This is Pequaide's thread, and i'm not going to deviate from that. I have my own ideas for a later thread.
I thank Pequaide for demonstrating that Energy can be made in the Lab.
It's amazing how much resistance and inertia there can be to new ideas like this.
Anything not related to elephants is irrelephant.
re: energy producing experiments
I don't need a referee greendoor but I appreciate the sentiment ;)
All I'm interested in is facts to prove a position - I have seen some convoluted & grand math presented here over the years - And when someone suggests an experimental method to test the theory & its proved wrong everyone seems to accept that to err is human - yep, but to convince me of any argument will require as many & as much supporting evidence as can be mustered - that might be math, sims, physical experiments - preferably all 3.
I personally find WM reliable providing you keep things simplified where ever possible - so far it has performed for me as I would expect real world experiments to do, & I've calibrated to both from time to time - especially early on - in this case it was pretty obvious that a force would be needed to stop the flywheel [the analogy of your see-saw btw] - by making the program do something that can't be done in real life I created an identical 'fake' force & relocated it where I could conveniently use it - that same force could fling a weight very high once it had overcome the weights inertia & providing it was strong enough & acted for long enough - that appears to be a representation of pequiade's math summation - but as I said, translocating a fake force to do your bidding isn't realistic IMO - neither is stoping the flywheel with an extending/unwinding tether that doesn't get to reset itself so it can be used again - that's where real world & sim world part ways, unless one of us can mechanically bridge that gap.
This to me is not an argument about math - its about mechanical proof of theory & I don't mean stopping a flywheel or atwood's device etc - I mean starting with X potential, doing work & finishing with the same X potential - that's why I said way back on page one, if a weight can ride the rim of a flywheel to 6 o'cl & then can't make it back up again, whether it drops off & the flywheel levers another up, or it just stays attached & goes for the ride - momentum is not the answer because the flywheel gave up all the momentum it gained - no point in me saying anymore.
All I'm interested in is facts to prove a position - I have seen some convoluted & grand math presented here over the years - And when someone suggests an experimental method to test the theory & its proved wrong everyone seems to accept that to err is human - yep, but to convince me of any argument will require as many & as much supporting evidence as can be mustered - that might be math, sims, physical experiments - preferably all 3.
I personally find WM reliable providing you keep things simplified where ever possible - so far it has performed for me as I would expect real world experiments to do, & I've calibrated to both from time to time - especially early on - in this case it was pretty obvious that a force would be needed to stop the flywheel [the analogy of your see-saw btw] - by making the program do something that can't be done in real life I created an identical 'fake' force & relocated it where I could conveniently use it - that same force could fling a weight very high once it had overcome the weights inertia & providing it was strong enough & acted for long enough - that appears to be a representation of pequiade's math summation - but as I said, translocating a fake force to do your bidding isn't realistic IMO - neither is stoping the flywheel with an extending/unwinding tether that doesn't get to reset itself so it can be used again - that's where real world & sim world part ways, unless one of us can mechanically bridge that gap.
This to me is not an argument about math - its about mechanical proof of theory & I don't mean stopping a flywheel or atwood's device etc - I mean starting with X potential, doing work & finishing with the same X potential - that's why I said way back on page one, if a weight can ride the rim of a flywheel to 6 o'cl & then can't make it back up again, whether it drops off & the flywheel levers another up, or it just stays attached & goes for the ride - momentum is not the answer because the flywheel gave up all the momentum it gained - no point in me saying anymore.
Last edited by Fletcher on Wed Jun 10, 2009 8:48 am, edited 1 time in total.
Whatever works, I reckon. I'm prepared to forget any fancy maths or theory in the cold light of an observable experiment.
Although i'm not a fan of the Yo-Yo Despin mechanism, I don't see resetting as being a major problem. Both my lawnmower and my Electrolux demonstrate a self-winding re-setting despin device (in reverse, but the same principle).
I'm aware there is an energy cost in rewinding a coiled up string. But it is a relatively small one, if the string is strong and light enough. Spider web silk should be ideal ...
All I care about is returning that small Driver mass upwards so we can begin again. (The large momentum Storage weights never change CoG so don't require resetting).
I believe the question is how to take the momentum of the Storage weights and translate this into upwards linear acceleration of the Driver mass to achieve height. This does involve a big increase in velocity, but another way of looking at this is taking something that takes a long Time, and releasing it in a short Time. (I believe Time is so deeply involved in Besslers wheel).
Although i'm not a fan of the Yo-Yo Despin mechanism, I don't see resetting as being a major problem. Both my lawnmower and my Electrolux demonstrate a self-winding re-setting despin device (in reverse, but the same principle).
I'm aware there is an energy cost in rewinding a coiled up string. But it is a relatively small one, if the string is strong and light enough. Spider web silk should be ideal ...
All I care about is returning that small Driver mass upwards so we can begin again. (The large momentum Storage weights never change CoG so don't require resetting).
I believe the question is how to take the momentum of the Storage weights and translate this into upwards linear acceleration of the Driver mass to achieve height. This does involve a big increase in velocity, but another way of looking at this is taking something that takes a long Time, and releasing it in a short Time. (I believe Time is so deeply involved in Besslers wheel).
I believe Bessler chooses his words very carefully - and the hints about Time (creeps = slow; pat = fast) are spot on. But that's just my opinion.Bessler/Translation by John Collins wrote:The dog creeps out of his kennel
just as far as his chain will stretch.
He knows how to please by playing
with his toys and knick-knacks.
He wags his tail, creeps through the hoop,
and is rewarded with a pat on the paws
by the stiff fops who watch him.