Another idea to add to the mix

[Fletcher]

As far as I know importing .dxf or cad files is fine - don't quote me though, I'm no expert, computer buff or programmer - I think you can also use imports from the likes of solid works but you have to size things first then import them etc.

Like all things once you get a system that works for you it gets easier to go thru the process without too much thought or trouble - try reading the tech support forum - somebody there may have already addressed importing shapes etc & then there is always the tutorials which will be cached somewhere I guess.

Sorry I can't be more accurate.

[mondrasek]

Success and failure with modifying a wm2d sim similar to broli's. I've found things to be somewhat more stable and definitely faster compute wise by building with only primitives (no polygons). I've added a flywheel and two friction drives. The flywheel is spun up by a motor that "disappears" after 1 sec. At half a second later a gear system engages the first (top) friction drive to the broli device. The device begins to wind up to speed as the flywheel is slowed over the next ~16 second until they equalize. Shortly after that some pins hold the secondary arms in place disappear and the momentum transfer begins. It all works pretty well and is nice to see.

Then problems occur that I have yet to find a way around:

1) I could not find a way to make both main members use the same main axle *and* different gear sets. While I have been able to join both main members to the back plane with axles that are one on top of the other and drive just one with a first gear set, adding a second gear set appears to stop all free motion around those axles.

2) In an attempted work around for #1, I made a separate axle and spindle disk to which I planned to attach first the main drive member and then the secondary driven member at different times using timed disappearing and appearing fastening pins. While that works okay, the first gear set always remains and appears to continue fastening the main drive member to the spindle disk, effectively binding everything up. To make this successful I believe I need some way to make the first gear set disappear completely.

I might have a way to do this without the gears by using friction drives directly on the spindle disk, but the gears make it very convenient to adjust ratios with parameters and not new geometry.

Anyway, here is the file if anyone wants to play. Any advice is always appreciated.

[Gregory]

Fletcher,

I checked your draft, and spent some of my time to make something similar. I used time values to simulate continously changing gear ratios to transfer momentum from one flywheel to the other.

The heavy flywheel is around 40 Kg.
The light flywheel is around 0.4 Kg.
The driver weight is 0.1 Kg

The heavy flywheel reach 6.4 peak Rpm
Transmission disengages when the heavy flywheel drops under 0.75 Rpm, at this point the light flywheel revolves around 90 Rpm. I used a pulley setup for lifting the drive weight.

No air resistance, no friction of any kind, virtual gearing...
In wm2d's opinion, it is a no go. The drive weight cannot return to the same height. Adding some friction makes it even worse, it does not lift the half of the height.

Actually I expected the same results without the sim.
We convert momentum between two device, but actually it is the same quantity (conserved), we do not add anything, so why would it lift higher?

Well... Is this sim okay anyway?

[Fletcher]

Thanks mondrasek & greg - greg you used the adjustable pulley the way I thought you might - sometimes I wish I had more skill with this program - I'll keep both your sims on file incase I need to 'chop shop' them.

Mondrasek, the only way I know how is to split off the actions is onto separate shafts as you've suggested & then interconnect them as greg has done - using the AND function seems to achieve the variable transmission we wanted so you might want to look at the properties in greg's sim to see how that is done, for future reference, & if you haven't already done so.

Greg, personally, no, I didn't think it was a goer either but the idea was to try & get WM to cooperate & see what it predicted, & did that make sense ?

Since broli is a 'geek' [in the nicest sense] he can probably 'chop shop' them again in his bid to disprove conservation of momentum from angular to linear ?!

Then we can argue about the findings, conclusions & the modeling technique, LOL - before someone like ralph applies a practical real world hand to how you might actually translate sim world to real world, if at all ?

Thanks again guys for taking time out of your busy lives & making some quick progress - who knows, something might come of it which would please at least 3 people & doc ?

[pequaide]

Why don’t you just transfer all the linear momentum of the 40 kilogram wheel to a .1 kilogram mass and see how high it will fly (reverse freefall). Forget your pulleys, transmissions and lifting.

[Fletcher]

How about a quick sketch pequaide [broken record] so we can see how you propose to do that instead of us guessing at the likely mechanics involved, or don't you see any ? - I guess you could take mondrasek's rendition of broli's gravity/Cf device & time it so that one of the weights impacted a small mass on a ramp to see how high it got ? - but as we know impact does not transfer all momentum unless the masses are equal, without some mechanical transmission it seems.

IMO, greendoor had it around the wrong way - momentum is the accounting function, Ke is the usefulness.

P.S. yes, thanks greg, the sim was great.

[pequaide]

I have shown you pictures why do you need drawings. I have also told you that impact is to be avoided, yet you persist on doing everything wrong. Ke is not conserved, why do you think it is useful? Oh; because you seek failure.

[Gregory]

Why don’t you just transfer all the linear momentum of the 40 kilogram wheel to a .1 kilogram mass and see how high it will fly (reverse freefall). Forget your pulleys, transmissions and lifting.

You mean you would use the same flywheel which had been spun up by the 0.1 Kg weight to return the same 0.1 Kg weight to its starting position? Doesn't it a lame attempt? (not to say that the sim isn't one) It is similar to the analogy when you start a pendulum at 12 o'clock and expect it to return to 12 o'clock, and even pass it...

Or I just don't get what you're talking about.

[Fletcher]

Actually I seek the truth in things pequaide.

Here's the truth as I see it.

You have an idea of using momentum to do work, that even though you say is very simple to reset you can't provide any technical advice to any builder on how to do that - you want others with more mechanical aptitude to solve that engineering problem for you [if it can be done] - then you'll say "now you get it" - that's why you won't put up any sort of drawing, that way you can't be brought to task - that's why you are here, to get others help to solve the technical issues, because you can't on your own, but you 'feel' there must be a way.

If you haven't made the connection then read thru 57 pages of doc's thread - here's the link http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewt ... sc&start=0

It's been around since 2005 - it is in effect your attwoods concept & greendoors momentum flywheel/beam except it does try to close the loop by lifting the drive weights up again - many here have put valiant efforts into trying to come up with a clutching mechanism or variable transmission to use the momentum from the heavy flywheel & drive weights - sound familiar - so far no cigar - doc at least had the benefit of most of the pieces except for the shifting mechanism & possible clutch - in my mind there is no doubt that it was a machine designed on the same principles that you expound i.e. momentum is the currency of energy for work - how about telling doc how simple it is to close the loop & then show him ? - I think he deserves an answer.

Back to your engineering problem - I seriously doubt that any mechanism will be found to reset such a device that doesn't require additional energy input, though you insist it's easy as childs play.

On that note, jim_mich has a lot of mechanical aptitude - he is probably one of the few that holds out hope for a mechanical solution to the reset - that's because he faces similar issues with his Cf inspired wheel where Ke increases by changing radius - he has the same problem of being able to harness that energy to reset the device to its original configuration without supplying external energy into the system - he feels he has a technical engineered solution to the problem which he is attempting to build & validate - possibly, if anyone here can, he can, so perhaps you should pay more attention to his comments & see if you can work out what he's doing, because it might solve your problem too.

Lastly, this thread was about how to reset the weights once they had disengaged from the wheel i.e. lift one back up to take its starting position & set things in motion again - then greendoor suggested a beam arrangement that used the momentum aka attwood, pequaide, but that seemed to require a variable transmission, so it's not unreasonable to speculate on how resetting a lifted drive weight might occur.

Many people here have put aside their prejudices & given up their time & used their skills to draw & build things in the hope that the reset & closing of the loop conundrum could be achieved mechanically - you however still sit on the sideline unwilling to contribute, other than to say you can't use springs or impact, & work with them to solve 'the engineering problem' of the reset.

In fact you don't even acknowledge that reset [closing the loop] is required to be proof of OU/PM which if it were Bessler's principle he surely did.

[rlortie]

Kudos Fletcher! all I can say is kudos and thank you!

Ralph

[AB Hammer]

Fletcher

Like I always said. You have a very good way with words. I have to agree Kudos.

[pequaide]

Gregory quote; You mean you would use the same flywheel which had been spun up by the 0.1 Kg weight to return the same 0.1 Kg weight to its starting position?

That is exactly what I would do, or to be more precise have done. “Have done� if I am allowed to use speed (Ke) as an end point and an Atwood’s as a starting point.

The ten pictures on page 29 in the “energy producing experiments� are ten frames of a video that shows a flywheel being stopped by swinging out spheres that are 1/4th the mass of the wheel. When the flywheel (PVC pipe) is stopped the spheres are moving 5 times as fast. So if the spinning system starts at one meter per second then the spheres end at 5 meters per second. The small mass of a 1 to 5 Atwood’s need only drop .2548 meters to produce one meter per second velocity. The spheres moving 5 meters per second will rise 1.274 meters. These are the same masses.

The concept can be broken down into three steps. Step one is the Atwood’s machine; which is used to make a large quantity of momentum from a small amount of energy. Step two is the cylinder and spheres machine which transfers this large amount of momentum to a smaller mass. And step three is a pendulum which allows this small mass to rise; which gives a large quantity of energy. We know how to make motion from an Atwood’s, the formula is F = ma. We know how high a pendulum bob will rise, the formula is d = ½ v²/a. The only thing left to prove is that Newton’s Three Laws of Motion apply to the cylinder and spheres machines. So the challenge is to build and test cylinder and spheres machines.

There is no lifting of the small mass, there is no transmission, no clutches, no springs, no sudden impact.

[broli]

See my latest post in the energy producing thread.

If I can confirm momentum transfer which leads to energy production, closing the loop is indeed child's play. It might not be 300 year old tech but Bessler used the tech of his time as well.

You attach a motor to the heavy setup which starts rotation to a given speed, then the small weights are released and absorb the momentum. When the door latch locks it into place a generator attached to the small setup is shorted and decelerates the setup producing energy. Which is then stored in a battery to partially reuse for initial motion and for own use.The whole setup can be self reset using some electronics and servo motors, which technically need no energy unlike some like to believe for some reason.

This is why I'm trying to put emphasis on controlled experimentation. Fletcher your post is mostly right. But I don't blame peq for only doing what he is capable of. Be it passive involvement in what he preaches. That is why I believe we should collaborate to fill the holes instead of play the waiting game. I'd rather be part of something important than wait for false promises and hope.

[Fletcher]

You've got my attention broli & good luck - you are committed to finding out answers for each phase & you're being careful - hopefully others here can model along with you [real & sim world], especially the motor/generator input/output.

One way or another some answers should fall out - if it works electrically then there should be a mechanical way to do it also - and if that works then as you said earlier you don't need gravity, just a horizontal setup & Cf's - if it doesn't work then the theory needs more work.

P.S. I'm a bit concerned that you & pequaide don't agree on the necessity for gravity though ?

[jim_mich]

If my CF concept actually works... you guys are going to be really mad at me! The mechanism is so very simple! (Of course I could be wrong.)

The wife's house "Phase I" is almost finished. If the weather turns bad tomorrow (so that working outside would be difficult) maybe I can squeeze some time into working on my Bessler wheel.