Another idea to add to the mix

[Fletcher]

By golly, that's a bit tidier than the last photo jim - & I for one won't be mad but relieved & I'll probably have a great big indent on my forehead when I see how :7)

[winkle]

Jim

what kind of a bird is setting in that tree in the upper left conner

looks like it has a long tail like a pheasant

mabe it's just a crow

hard to tell

[DrWhat]

Looks like my back shed!

Only kidding. Nice one Jim. That thing in the tree is the camera I installed to put you on YouTube when you walk out with a victorious smile on your face! (and the wheel in your arms).

[greendoor]

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.

Pequaide - I think part of the problem of translating your concept into a working machine is a misunderstanding of what you are saying here, which appears to contradict itself.

You say "There is no lifting of the small mass" - but you also say "step three is a pendulum which allows this small mass to rise".

You say "there is no transmission, no clutches, no springs, no sudden impact."

But you describe the cylinder & spheres, and the transfer of momentum from the cylinder to the spheres. But the spheres are tethered to the cylinder, and they need to be un-tethered, otherwise how can we use their Velocity? If they remain tethered, they are going to start orbiting around the cylinder (as they are moving 5 times faster) and ultimately start accelerating it again.

Unless i've pictured this all wrong, the transfer of momentum from the large mass to the small mass requires an Impact of sorts. Whether they remain tethered or not - the fact that the small mass can fly outwards unrestrained, until the cord tightens and Forces start acting, means that there is a form of 'sudden impact'.

How are we going to transfer the motion of the spheres to the pendulum? I can't see any way of doing this other than Impact.

The fact that we have to let the Atwoods Accelerate unrestrained, and then capture the final Momentum also suggests a 'sudden impact'. In engineering terms, this does seem to suggest a 'clutch' of some sort, which is why the idea is being discussed.

A spring has been mentioned, because this seems like a possible substitute for a clutch or a tethered arrangement. Bessler certainly seems to suggest a tethered arrangement when he talks about the dog going as far as his leash will permit.

Maybe we are arguing about semantics - but this isn't helping us to come to a practical solution. I agree, the scientific tests have meaning and merit. But we need to build a simple machine that closes the loop - that proves conclusively that we can drop a mass, and end up with that same mass being returned higher. (Or more mass being returned to the same height, or ideally more mass being returned higher).

[pequaide]

The moving mass will naturally rise as a pendulum bob, no force from the flywheel needs to be applied after it is released. It is not being lifted by a flywheel, it has been released.

I am using the word impact in a more common sense, there is no sudden strike.

[mondrasek]

Here is the sim of broli's device being started into motion from a flywheel initially spinning at 10 rad/sec. That flywheel reduces in speed as the device is spun up through a continuous variable ratio gear connection. Once the entire device is up to -1 rad/sec, the secondary arms deploy. After those arms have completely deployed the first part of the device is almost completely stationary while the secondary part now has all the transferred momentum as in broli's video. The secondary part is then coupled back to the original flywheel again through a continuous variable ratio gear connection. The goal here is to see if the flywheel can be spun up to it's original 10 rad/sec (or beyond). It does not appear to do so.

I had to split the first and second halves of the device since I still have not been able to drive two separately geared co-axial devices. So they are coupled by another 1:1 gear set (two actually to keep directions correct). All the gears engage and disengage at appropriate time and/or event stages now that I know the proper syntax for that (thanks Gregory and Fletcher).

Changing the speed of the gear ratio changes does not appear to change the outcome, so I am confident they are transferring momentum properly, even if there are some impacts in the secondary arm motion. Those impacts and the gear engagements appear to be lossless in wm2d.

BTW, in this sim the broli device is spun up with much less flywheel momentum than when I was attempting to use the friction drives. Besides being buggy as all hell to even get to work stable, the friction drive does not appear to transfer momentum without losses and should not be used to model ideal situation.

[Fletcher]

Mondrasek .. the gear connections are indeed lossless IIRC - just like rod connections & pin joints are massless, so it is optimal conditions for modeling - the premiss being that you can tweak the model to real world performance by adding frictions later - one of the simple ways to do this is use low air speed - that sort of approximates all internal frictions into one gross friction [quick & dirty but effective] - otherwise you can build your own frictional equivalent forces or in the case of the friction dampener, add some friction accountability that way.

I'll be interested to see what broli has to say about the model performance & conclusions drawn so far with it ? - that's because all theories & models are built on a set of assumptions that need to be laid out & rigorously tested before moving with confidence to the next stage, IMO - so if this isn't performing to expectations, why not ? - is the model wrong or is the assumption incorrect ?

Nice work btw.

[pequaide]

The word “lifted� implies that one object is doing something to another object. Jim lifted his ladder into place along the wall. The crane lifted the beam into place. The flywheel lifted the mass.

But do we say; “The road lifted the speeding car to the top of the hill�? Or “The point of rotation lifted the pendulum bob�? No we don’t word it like that because we would be wrong.

We could say that “The momentum of the speeding car lifted it to the top of the hill�. Or “The momentum of the pendulum bob lifted it to the top of the swing�. Okay: I will give you that much; the momentum is lifting the pendulum bob. Hum; you may have a point.

But the speeding small mass (spheres) is not being lifted by an external object such as the flywheel. It is being lifted by it own motion.

Several models transfer their motion with the flywheel and small masses in the same horizontal plane, so the word lift (by the flywheel) simply can not apply.

Lifting does not occur until the concept enters the third step, when the small masses own motion lifts it up a ramp or up a pendulum swing.

Impact? I don’t view all transfers of momentum from one object to another as impact. Is there such a thing as slow impact? The spheres unwrap from the cylinder in a very smooth swing. There is no jerky motion. It seems inappropriate to refer to it as an impact. The word transfer seems to fit better. Does a child on a swing impact something? No; not unless he falls off and hits the ground.

I don’t even see that an object in linear motion that is caught on the end of a string, and then becomes a pendulum bob, as being impact. If the linear motion was at 90° to the string the change would be hardly noticeable. Is it impact when you enter a curve on the interstate? Is it impact when a child jumps out of a swing, no not until he hits the ground.

“Clutch?� Why; what do you need it for? A clutch might be used as a release I suppose.

“Transmission?�: Woo; what part of simple don’t you understand? This concept is simple. Transmissions are energy grabbers. I see no need for a transmission. When I share the motion of a vertical wheel with a horizontal wheel the two wheels’ circumferences are moving at the same speed there is not a gearing up or a gearing down of the motion. The horizontal wheel can then throw (as in the cylinder and spheres) out a small mass that stops both wheels. All the momentum is transferred to the small mass without the use of gears or different pulley sizes. I have done this experiment, it worked, and it is smooth, every portion is smooth. The wheels stop smoothly, now the small mass whams things after it is released but this is into step three.

The vertical wheel in the above paragraph is an Atwood’s. An overbalanced mass placed on a wheel has the same effect as a mass on the end of a string draped over the circumference of the wheel. The overbalanced mass accelerates both the vertical wheel and the attached horizontal wheel so that there is no jerking motion (no impact). When the puck swings out and stops both wheels, and the overbalanced mass, the motion is smooth. I have to explain it the way I see it and the motion is smooth. It is quick but smooth.

So I will alter my list of no no’s slightly. There is no sudden impact between the flywheel and the thrown mass. There is no lifting by the flywheel. I have made energy in the lab without transmissions or clutches.

I think Galileo closed the loop that Fletcher worries about. Even Galileo knew how high an object would rise, given a certain velocity. Pretending that the loop is not closed already is altogether overblown in my opinion. I am not going to study up on how to let a cart roll up a ramp, or how to let a pendulum bob rise. I am going to assume that any engineer worth his salt can do step three.

[jim_mich]

Pequaide, your last post seems to be mostly a discussion of semantics. It is a discussion about what to call or name things. This is good! When someone says something and another person hearing/reading it envisions something different then it is very hard to communicate effectively.

Transfer is a much better descriptive word to use than impact. You are transferring momentum from object to object. Then you object to the word 'transmission'. I think this is because you envision a transmission as being some type of gearing device like in an automobile. The truth is a transmission is ANY device that transmits or transfers force from one object to another object. Thus if you have an overbalanced mass accelerating both the vertical wheel and the attached horizontal wheel then you are using a form of transmission.

I'm still a little confused as to exactly what you are proposing. You talk of a vertical wheel and a horizontal wheel. Was Bessler's wheel a vertical wheel or a horizontal wheel? It had a horizontal axle shaft so I guess it was a horizontal wheel? But any weights inside the wheel would have fallen vertically. So I guess it was a vertical wheel. But wait, it definitely wasn't both vertical and horizontal. So you see the verbal problem with describing any wheel or experiments? The one doing the describing thinks he is being perfectly clear, because he totally understands what it is he is trying to say. The listener/reader many times gets a totally different picture in mind. This is why a picture or drawing is worth a thousand words!


Let me explain your three steps as best I understand them...

First the setup:
Two wheels are rotationally connected. The first wheel has a horizontal axle and the second wheel has a vertical axle. The first wheel has a cord wrapped around its perimeter. The cord has a weight attached. This weight can fall thus turning the wheel. The rotational connection causes the second wheel to rotate. Wrapped around the perimeter of this second wheel is a different cord. On the end of this cord is a weight that is initially latched to the wheel. When released from the wheel this second weight flies outward due to centrifugal force causing the cord to unwrap. This flings the released weight to a faster speed.

Step 1:
The weight on the first wheel (with the horizontal axle) falls a certain distance due to gravity thus rotating the first wheel and the second wheel and the weight on the second wheel. This would be the acceleration phase.

Step 2:
The weight on the end of the cord of the second wheel is let loose. The cord uncoils, which decelerates both wheels while accelerating the weight out horizontally. The released weight is sped up as the momentum transfers from the two wheels to the released weight of the second wheel

Step 3:
This step any engineer worth his salt can supposedly do. Supposedly the second weight is flung out at such a speed that its inertial kinetic energy can lift the first weight back up to the place of beginning thus re-wrapping the first cord. Also the second weight must be moved back towards the wheel while re-wrapping the second cord. Supposedly this can all be done using only the energy of the fast moving second weight.


Did I correctly understand the basic steps and setup? Probably not! I probably screwed up something or misunderstood something. That is why diagrams and sketches are helpful. Photographs are often confusing. Even diagrams and sketches can be confusing.

[DrWhat]

I don't see why my rewrapping image wasn't commented on in another post as this to me would prove overunity.

[chap]

Pequaide,

I know you don't like springs, but would it be possible to use a thin,, 1/2"to 3'4 inch piece of spring steel (picture a tape measure spring, kind of like the tape measure itself, but a different grade of steel, I think) instead of the cord on one of your devices? That way it would wrap itself up after stopping the flywheel.

If it would work, wouldn't the spring be shorter than the cord to achieve the same effect?

Thanks,
Chap

[Fletcher]

Like the hand held retractable dog walking ropes, lawn mower pull cords, tape measures, retractable clothes line mechs - they all use coiled springs but springs nonetheless.

[chap]

The plastic clips for my Ruger Mark II that hold 14 shots instead of 10.

[pequaide]

Jim; you have the concept, correct.

Springs used to wrap cords (etc.) is fine, just don't use them to store the motion of the system.

[broli]

Springs used to wrap cords (etc.) is fine, just don't use them to store the motion of the system.

If by motion you mean the motion of the small masses after transfer then you are again contradicting yourself. Whether you use a regular spring, constant force spring or gravity doesn't make a difference, unless you want to shoot things in the sky.

It can be easily shown that a constant force spring can be stretched out way beyond the length you used to start the initial rotation, IF linear momentum is transfered.