A suggestion Neptune - perhaps for a POP experiment, have a heavy flywheel [say 100 kgs] & a drive weight falling from just after 12 o'cl to 6 o'cl - somewhere above the axle [anywhere & at any height] hang a pendulum - have equal lengths of a light weight material or construction each side of the pendulum pivot so that it is basically cancelled out of the experiment, except for a small bit of inertia - attach an identical mass to the drive mass to act as the pendulum bob - the drive mas impacts the pendulum mass at around 6 o'cl.
If the drive mass & the pendulum bob are both, say 1 kg, then the drive mass will swing the pendulum up a ways - not far granted & very little of the momentum will be used because the flywheel & attached drive mass will drive on thru - if you increase the mass of the pendulum bob to somewhere around 50 kg's then the main flywheel & drive mass will come to a stop after impact [having transferred the bulk of the momentum as per the theory] - the pendulum is the same as a ballistic pendulum apparatus so if you know the mass & how far it lifted you can calculate the Potential Energy gained or visa versa how much Kinetic Energy it gained from the flywheel, since gravitational Ke & Pe are interchangeable.
Use any ratio's you like, it is the principle under test.
EDIT: oops, deja vu right back to the beginning of this thread - springs & impact can't be used for transmission purposes - not sure how greendoors hydraulic & scissor lifts would work without impact though ?
energy producing experiments
Moderator: scott
re: energy producing experiments
Neptune; An easy way to do a proper experiment is to purchase a three inch PVC pipe coupler, a length of three inch (inside diameter) PVC pipe, a spool of 30 lb fluorocarbon fishing line, a 1/16 inch drill bit, two 3/16 inch bolts with nuts and washer to make a combined mass of about 60 grams for each bolt, and a pair jersey gloves.
Drill a 1/16 inch hole through a diameter of the coupler; this is actually two holes at 180° from each other. Place the holes at equal distance from the top at about an inch down from the top.
Place the fluorocarbon fishing line through the holes and extend the line well beyond both sides before you cut the line. Tie a loop and bolt your two bolts (with washers and nut) to the each end of the line so that both tethers extend beyond the cylinder about one diameter.
Put on your jersey gloves and wrap the tether strings around the cylinder. The two tethers, with bolts attached, should be of equal length and you can jam the string in the hole with a toothpick so the tether does not slide through the hole. Leave some of the toothpick sticking out on the inside so you can change string length.
Hold the bolts up against the cylinder and spin it in the opposite direction that you wrapped the tethers. Release the bolts and cylinder at the same time. This will allow the bolts to unwrap and the PVC pipe coupler will quickly stop spinning. The cylinder will probably move backwards, mark it some way (black electrical tape, etc) and see if it moves backwards. I have never used bolts; that is why I had you wear gloves. I always use spheres. Use other safety precautions. The string might be cut etc.
If the cylinder moves backwards to quickly add mass to the coupler by inserting a cut length of the 3 inch pipe you bought. The greater the tether length the more cylinder mass the bolts will stop. And the greater the bolt mass the more cylinder mass will be stopped.
When the bolts have all the motion the energy increases significantly. This little experiment will give you ideas on how to improve the system and make it repeating. You can also video tape the experiment; this helps determine relative speeds.
Drill a 1/16 inch hole through a diameter of the coupler; this is actually two holes at 180° from each other. Place the holes at equal distance from the top at about an inch down from the top.
Place the fluorocarbon fishing line through the holes and extend the line well beyond both sides before you cut the line. Tie a loop and bolt your two bolts (with washers and nut) to the each end of the line so that both tethers extend beyond the cylinder about one diameter.
Put on your jersey gloves and wrap the tether strings around the cylinder. The two tethers, with bolts attached, should be of equal length and you can jam the string in the hole with a toothpick so the tether does not slide through the hole. Leave some of the toothpick sticking out on the inside so you can change string length.
Hold the bolts up against the cylinder and spin it in the opposite direction that you wrapped the tethers. Release the bolts and cylinder at the same time. This will allow the bolts to unwrap and the PVC pipe coupler will quickly stop spinning. The cylinder will probably move backwards, mark it some way (black electrical tape, etc) and see if it moves backwards. I have never used bolts; that is why I had you wear gloves. I always use spheres. Use other safety precautions. The string might be cut etc.
If the cylinder moves backwards to quickly add mass to the coupler by inserting a cut length of the 3 inch pipe you bought. The greater the tether length the more cylinder mass the bolts will stop. And the greater the bolt mass the more cylinder mass will be stopped.
When the bolts have all the motion the energy increases significantly. This little experiment will give you ideas on how to improve the system and make it repeating. You can also video tape the experiment; this helps determine relative speeds.
re: energy producing experiments
@Fletcher and Pequade. Thanks for describing experinents to help me understand this theory. I will try these experiments as pressure of work allows.
@Pequade. I am surprised that someone who has tried this expt has not poster a vid on youtube. I f they have, please direct me to it. If not, I will try it myself, although, whilst sticking to the priciple, I will use junk materials I have laying around. No doubt this is your preferred embodiment of the expt. Just as a matter of interest, if we briefly consider the 2 seesaw expt , and we make certain assumptions, as we can in a thought expt. Assume that the small seesaw beam is weightless. Assume that there is no loss of energy in the impact of seesaw 1 to seesaw 2. Assume that all weights are optinised. If all these assumptions are made, could we then expect the flying weight to rise higher than the driver weight falls? to me , that is a key question on the path to understanding.
@Fletcher. I like your ballistic pendulum idea. I will probably try this. I am no mathematician as I said before. I am an old guy with dirt under my fingernails, who likes building stuff out of junk , and doing a bit of welding. IMO success in this field needs all kind of guys working together. As I said before, if this theory is valid [and I am not the one to judge,] The real proof will be when by dropping a weight of xgrams, we can raise another such weight further than the first weight fell. Anyone showing that can rest on his laurels, and there will be a rush of guys building self runners including mysef.
@Pequade. I am surprised that someone who has tried this expt has not poster a vid on youtube. I f they have, please direct me to it. If not, I will try it myself, although, whilst sticking to the priciple, I will use junk materials I have laying around. No doubt this is your preferred embodiment of the expt. Just as a matter of interest, if we briefly consider the 2 seesaw expt , and we make certain assumptions, as we can in a thought expt. Assume that the small seesaw beam is weightless. Assume that there is no loss of energy in the impact of seesaw 1 to seesaw 2. Assume that all weights are optinised. If all these assumptions are made, could we then expect the flying weight to rise higher than the driver weight falls? to me , that is a key question on the path to understanding.
@Fletcher. I like your ballistic pendulum idea. I will probably try this. I am no mathematician as I said before. I am an old guy with dirt under my fingernails, who likes building stuff out of junk , and doing a bit of welding. IMO success in this field needs all kind of guys working together. As I said before, if this theory is valid [and I am not the one to judge,] The real proof will be when by dropping a weight of xgrams, we can raise another such weight further than the first weight fell. Anyone showing that can rest on his laurels, and there will be a rush of guys building self runners including mysef.
re: energy producing experiments
Neptune . the cylinder & tethered bolts experiment is valid, by all accounts - the cylinder will stop rotating & the tethered bolts will gain velocity.
The question remains, how much energy was consumed to spin the device so that it could deploy correctly ?
How does this relate to the velocity gain in the bolts & can this be used to do work ?
N.B.1. If a bolt is untethered then we have disrupted the system so we must use the velocity in the bolts whilst still connected to the system otherwise they are no longer part of a closed isolated system !
N.B.2. energy is the capacity to do work therefore the bolts will have velocity & Kinetic Energy - that Ke can only be useful energy if it does some work - that work would be to reset itself & if a hanging weight is used [like an Atwoods] to accelerate the initial conditions from static then it must also lift an equivalent mass the same height [Pe] that was lost - if it can simply lift an equivalent mass higher than was lost [& by a significant margin] then it is safe to assume that some of that Pe gain could be used for resetting [details to be worked out by whomever].
I like your approach Neptune & perhaps your mechanical aptitude & tenacity will bridge the gap ?!
The question remains, how much energy was consumed to spin the device so that it could deploy correctly ?
How does this relate to the velocity gain in the bolts & can this be used to do work ?
N.B.1. If a bolt is untethered then we have disrupted the system so we must use the velocity in the bolts whilst still connected to the system otherwise they are no longer part of a closed isolated system !
N.B.2. energy is the capacity to do work therefore the bolts will have velocity & Kinetic Energy - that Ke can only be useful energy if it does some work - that work would be to reset itself & if a hanging weight is used [like an Atwoods] to accelerate the initial conditions from static then it must also lift an equivalent mass the same height [Pe] that was lost - if it can simply lift an equivalent mass higher than was lost [& by a significant margin] then it is safe to assume that some of that Pe gain could be used for resetting [details to be worked out by whomever].
I like your approach Neptune & perhaps your mechanical aptitude & tenacity will bridge the gap ?!
re: energy producing experiments
I down sized the picture to 19 k but then my photo viewer wouldn’t let me pick the down sized picture. And the viewer would not tell me how big the picture was, sorry again.
It is true that the spheres (bolts) have gained all the momentum of an isolated system. But once the cylinder is at rest I see no problem with releasing the spheres from the system. It is not like the big physics bogy man is going to come and sink his teeth into us or something.
The bolts work great; they have a little more air resistance of course. But it makes it easy to adjust their mass. The mass of the added on pipe is about 600 grams. The 131.1 g is the total mass of the bolts the 212.8 g is the mass of the coupler. So the bolts stop quite a bit.
It is true that the spheres (bolts) have gained all the momentum of an isolated system. But once the cylinder is at rest I see no problem with releasing the spheres from the system. It is not like the big physics bogy man is going to come and sink his teeth into us or something.
The bolts work great; they have a little more air resistance of course. But it makes it easy to adjust their mass. The mass of the added on pipe is about 600 grams. The 131.1 g is the total mass of the bolts the 212.8 g is the mass of the coupler. So the bolts stop quite a bit.
re: energy producing experiments
My mind has stuggled for days with this.Perhaps my lack of mathematical knowledge is not helping. I wish that, in the words of Gilbert and Sullivan I could say
I,m a mine of information on all matters mathematical
I understand equations, both the simple and quadratical
I`ve information vegetable animal and mineral,
I am the very model of a modern major general.
Sadly it is not so.I agree with pequade that some method must be used to quantify the energy used to spin the cylinder. This of corse could be done by wrapping a bit of string around the cylinder and using a falling weight.
The trouble is that before you know it , too many weights and bits of string, and it gets complex and crude. An image which may be relevant keeps coming to mind. Imagine an ice skater spinning on ice on one toe. If the skater wishes to rotate faster, the arms are held close to the body, whilst extending the arms slows the spin.
If this phenomenon is valid, why should it only show itself with cylinders, weights and string. There is no place for string in a working device.OK in a proof of cocerpt expt, yes. Why not replace the strings with telescopic rods, or with rigid rods hinged to the cylinder, able to swing in a vertical plane or horizontal plane as deemed appropriate.
I have an instinctive appreciation of machines, but I cant see how one could have feedback mechanism fof the weights to re-spin the cylinder at this stage. I dont say it cant be done. I just feel that we need to see this at work in a different mechanism, whereby a feedback mech would be easier to arrange, which is what I tried to do with my seesaws.What I would like to know, is if the seesaw idea is THEORETICALLY possible.
Yuor comments please
I,m a mine of information on all matters mathematical
I understand equations, both the simple and quadratical
I`ve information vegetable animal and mineral,
I am the very model of a modern major general.
Sadly it is not so.I agree with pequade that some method must be used to quantify the energy used to spin the cylinder. This of corse could be done by wrapping a bit of string around the cylinder and using a falling weight.
The trouble is that before you know it , too many weights and bits of string, and it gets complex and crude. An image which may be relevant keeps coming to mind. Imagine an ice skater spinning on ice on one toe. If the skater wishes to rotate faster, the arms are held close to the body, whilst extending the arms slows the spin.
If this phenomenon is valid, why should it only show itself with cylinders, weights and string. There is no place for string in a working device.OK in a proof of cocerpt expt, yes. Why not replace the strings with telescopic rods, or with rigid rods hinged to the cylinder, able to swing in a vertical plane or horizontal plane as deemed appropriate.
I have an instinctive appreciation of machines, but I cant see how one could have feedback mechanism fof the weights to re-spin the cylinder at this stage. I dont say it cant be done. I just feel that we need to see this at work in a different mechanism, whereby a feedback mech would be easier to arrange, which is what I tried to do with my seesaws.What I would like to know, is if the seesaw idea is THEORETICALLY possible.
Yuor comments please
re: energy producing experiments
I have started to read all the posts on this thread.So far I have read 10 pages. I am learning all the time. The spinning ice skater I mentioned in my last post was previously mentioned by, I think , Greendoor. OK here is a relevant question. Classic experiment. 10 kg flywheel, balanced. Add 1 Kg drainer weight at just past 12 oclock.When driver weight reaches 6 o'clock, we disconnect it from flywheel, and connect it to a transmission system. The gear ratio of this system is such that as the moving flywheel advances a short distance, the driver weight is hauled to the top of the wheel.
Here is the problem. One can not stop a flywheel instantly. If we jam a crowbar through the spokes, it will bounce back. so we need to decelerate it over a distance, no matter how short. Is there any advantage over short versus long distance?
On the answer to this question , will depend what gear ratio we choose.
Another point. This thread has been on the go for about a year. If energy gains of the order of tenfold and more are available, I would have expected a self runner to have appeared by now. With that sort of gain, I would expect the crudest model to work, including banging two seesaws together. So what is the hold-up. Come on chaps, its not Rocket Science.
Oh sorry, I forgot. That is exactly what it is.
Here is the problem. One can not stop a flywheel instantly. If we jam a crowbar through the spokes, it will bounce back. so we need to decelerate it over a distance, no matter how short. Is there any advantage over short versus long distance?
On the answer to this question , will depend what gear ratio we choose.
Another point. This thread has been on the go for about a year. If energy gains of the order of tenfold and more are available, I would have expected a self runner to have appeared by now. With that sort of gain, I would expect the crudest model to work, including banging two seesaws together. So what is the hold-up. Come on chaps, its not Rocket Science.
Oh sorry, I forgot. That is exactly what it is.
Good questions Neptune. I think the ice skater experiment is fundamentally flawed (as is any experiment that uses the human body to prove a physics point). It is the classic school experiment used to prove conservation of angular momentum BUT it completely ignores the fact that a human skater will exert considerable Force in bringing the arms closer to the body, against the centrifugal force keeping them out. Sure - the body will accelerate and spin faster, but you can't ignore the force applied by the muscles. And any attempt to make a machine do the same will find that a supply of Force is required.
What Pequaide is proposing works - and the necessary 'supply of force' is provided by Gravity (multiplied by Time). There are many fairly smart people on this forum who cannot see this (or do not want to see this) and are coming up with improbable sources of Force which just don't exist.
What I call the "accumulation of momentum" (which is a phrase that I probably coined, and irks some of the classically trained skeptics here) is very easy to prove. Especially if you stick to linear motion. Ultimately, we want to use flywheels or beams that rotate, but it makes the maths a little more difficult. Pequaide has shown that the basic principle works with linear motion, and when this is translated to rotary motion there isn't a great deal of difference - despite what the debunkers have been conditioned to think. When a chunk of metal breaks off a spinning flywheel, it carries on a linear trajectory with the same speed that it had when it was rotating.
You could prove the "accumulation of momentum" part by accelerating a mass on a horizontal linear railway, with an equal mass falling downwards using a rope over a pulley. In the balanced state, the mass does not accelerate. But apply a small 'driver' weight and the descending mass will start to accelerate (very slowly). F = MA therefore A = F/M. That means the Force of Gravity gets shared over the total mass of the system (M1 + M2 + driverM). By virtue of the Acceleration being much smaller, the available Height is available for a much longer Time than free-fall of the driver Mass. But the actual Force of gravity acting on the driver Mass is exactly the same. It's simply available for Acceleration purposes for a much greater period of Time. Force x Time = Momentum, therefore the Momentum that is "accumulated" by the total system is much greater than the Momentum that the driver Mass (alone) could possible "accumulate" in a mucher faster free-fall. Go ahead and work it out, using simple linear Kinematic equations.
Friction is a problem, but we are shooting for huge gains in Momentum that are well above friction losses. At this point, I would hope that nobody would attempt to deny that the Momentum attained by a 'slightly overbalanced' system can be several times greater than a free-falling mass acting alone.
The real question is whether these large numbers for Momentum are useful. That seems such a crazy question to me, but you have to be crazy to spend any time at a forum like this. Would you mind being crushed by a runaway train carriage if it was only moving extremely slowly?? Momentum is real and can hurt you - even slow momentum.
Newtowns cradle proves that Momentum is a conserved property. That means in theory we can turn heavy/slow momentum into light/fast momentum. This is what we are trying to do in this thread - because we need to fast velocity to return the driver mass upwards very quickly. If we don't return it quickly, we have to fight against the Force of gravity for a longer period of Time, and any gains in momentum acquired by virtue of extended Force * Time get sucked up on the return trip. We have a need for speed.
The real problem is transferring as much momentum as we can from the heavy total mass to the light driver mass. Newtons cradle demonstrates how big a problem this is. Because if we smash the heavy mass into the light mass, we don't transfer all the momentum into the light mass. (The heavy mass just keeps on moving ...). Ideally, we want to bring the total heavy system to a standstill. This is where Pequaide's Yo-Yo device is so genius.
But a good 'second best' is Pequaide's Bolas device. And judging from Bessler's description of a dog reaching the end of it's chain, I suspect this is the principle that Bessler used.
Basically - we allow heavy mass system to freely accelerate, until the "end of it's chain" - at which point *YOINK* the driver mass suddenly gets pulled by the slow moving mass with lots of Momentum.
In that moment in time, the Force in the chain is shared equally, for an equal amount of time. In other words, the Momentum is shared equally. In theory, the large mass will lose HALF of it's momentum (which is a lot better than what a Newtons Cradle impact can impart). The small driver mass suddenly inherits all this momentum and it has to move. Due to the much lighter mass, it has to move FAST.
OK - will a see-saw work in this process? I can see problems with that. A see-see, if made strong enough to withstand the force involved, will have substantial mass and inertia of it's own that will rob a lot of the momentum.
Think about kicking a football. You have the heavy slow moving mass of the football player, with which to apply momentum to the light football. How successful would this be if you put the football on a see-saw, and asked the player to kick the other end of the see-saw? It seems much easier just to kick the football directly ...
I would suggest that our design should be as strong and as light as possible, and designed to share the momentum as quickly as possible.
Think in terms of Force x Time.
What Pequaide is proposing works - and the necessary 'supply of force' is provided by Gravity (multiplied by Time). There are many fairly smart people on this forum who cannot see this (or do not want to see this) and are coming up with improbable sources of Force which just don't exist.
What I call the "accumulation of momentum" (which is a phrase that I probably coined, and irks some of the classically trained skeptics here) is very easy to prove. Especially if you stick to linear motion. Ultimately, we want to use flywheels or beams that rotate, but it makes the maths a little more difficult. Pequaide has shown that the basic principle works with linear motion, and when this is translated to rotary motion there isn't a great deal of difference - despite what the debunkers have been conditioned to think. When a chunk of metal breaks off a spinning flywheel, it carries on a linear trajectory with the same speed that it had when it was rotating.
You could prove the "accumulation of momentum" part by accelerating a mass on a horizontal linear railway, with an equal mass falling downwards using a rope over a pulley. In the balanced state, the mass does not accelerate. But apply a small 'driver' weight and the descending mass will start to accelerate (very slowly). F = MA therefore A = F/M. That means the Force of Gravity gets shared over the total mass of the system (M1 + M2 + driverM). By virtue of the Acceleration being much smaller, the available Height is available for a much longer Time than free-fall of the driver Mass. But the actual Force of gravity acting on the driver Mass is exactly the same. It's simply available for Acceleration purposes for a much greater period of Time. Force x Time = Momentum, therefore the Momentum that is "accumulated" by the total system is much greater than the Momentum that the driver Mass (alone) could possible "accumulate" in a mucher faster free-fall. Go ahead and work it out, using simple linear Kinematic equations.
Friction is a problem, but we are shooting for huge gains in Momentum that are well above friction losses. At this point, I would hope that nobody would attempt to deny that the Momentum attained by a 'slightly overbalanced' system can be several times greater than a free-falling mass acting alone.
The real question is whether these large numbers for Momentum are useful. That seems such a crazy question to me, but you have to be crazy to spend any time at a forum like this. Would you mind being crushed by a runaway train carriage if it was only moving extremely slowly?? Momentum is real and can hurt you - even slow momentum.
Newtowns cradle proves that Momentum is a conserved property. That means in theory we can turn heavy/slow momentum into light/fast momentum. This is what we are trying to do in this thread - because we need to fast velocity to return the driver mass upwards very quickly. If we don't return it quickly, we have to fight against the Force of gravity for a longer period of Time, and any gains in momentum acquired by virtue of extended Force * Time get sucked up on the return trip. We have a need for speed.
The real problem is transferring as much momentum as we can from the heavy total mass to the light driver mass. Newtons cradle demonstrates how big a problem this is. Because if we smash the heavy mass into the light mass, we don't transfer all the momentum into the light mass. (The heavy mass just keeps on moving ...). Ideally, we want to bring the total heavy system to a standstill. This is where Pequaide's Yo-Yo device is so genius.
But a good 'second best' is Pequaide's Bolas device. And judging from Bessler's description of a dog reaching the end of it's chain, I suspect this is the principle that Bessler used.
Basically - we allow heavy mass system to freely accelerate, until the "end of it's chain" - at which point *YOINK* the driver mass suddenly gets pulled by the slow moving mass with lots of Momentum.
In that moment in time, the Force in the chain is shared equally, for an equal amount of time. In other words, the Momentum is shared equally. In theory, the large mass will lose HALF of it's momentum (which is a lot better than what a Newtons Cradle impact can impart). The small driver mass suddenly inherits all this momentum and it has to move. Due to the much lighter mass, it has to move FAST.
OK - will a see-saw work in this process? I can see problems with that. A see-see, if made strong enough to withstand the force involved, will have substantial mass and inertia of it's own that will rob a lot of the momentum.
Think about kicking a football. You have the heavy slow moving mass of the football player, with which to apply momentum to the light football. How successful would this be if you put the football on a see-saw, and asked the player to kick the other end of the see-saw? It seems much easier just to kick the football directly ...
I would suggest that our design should be as strong and as light as possible, and designed to share the momentum as quickly as possible.
Think in terms of Force x Time.
re: energy producing experiments
Like this Neptune ?
The pic below is starting conditions - the see-saw shows the center of mass for each side [looks like a nuclear symbol] - there is a counter weight so it is balanced/neutral - the see-saw has low mass therefore low inertia - flywheel is 1000 kgs - drive weight & lifted weights both 10 kgs.
I lost the sim before I could get a shot of it at max lift height so can't put it up & haven't the time to make another - perhaps greendoor will understand this setup ???
The flywheel & drive weight come to a stop in a short distance - the leverage factor rapidly lifts the lifted weight - it does not get higher than the drive weight started from - the force times distance relationship of the see-saw is set so that the flywheel & drive weight stop & do not drive thru or rebound - NO GAIN to be had in sim world - N.B. no losses built into the sim.
If there were truely anything to this theory a flywheel at 100:1 [thereabouts] ratio should show it ?!
EDIT: I may rebuild the sim & take a pic of it at max lift height later.
If the real world results [if this or something like it were built] were anything different from the sim predictions I'd be majorly surprised.
The pic below is starting conditions - the see-saw shows the center of mass for each side [looks like a nuclear symbol] - there is a counter weight so it is balanced/neutral - the see-saw has low mass therefore low inertia - flywheel is 1000 kgs - drive weight & lifted weights both 10 kgs.
I lost the sim before I could get a shot of it at max lift height so can't put it up & haven't the time to make another - perhaps greendoor will understand this setup ???
The flywheel & drive weight come to a stop in a short distance - the leverage factor rapidly lifts the lifted weight - it does not get higher than the drive weight started from - the force times distance relationship of the see-saw is set so that the flywheel & drive weight stop & do not drive thru or rebound - NO GAIN to be had in sim world - N.B. no losses built into the sim.
If there were truely anything to this theory a flywheel at 100:1 [thereabouts] ratio should show it ?!
EDIT: I may rebuild the sim & take a pic of it at max lift height later.
If the real world results [if this or something like it were built] were anything different from the sim predictions I'd be majorly surprised.
- Attachments
-
- Neptune -see-saw1 - start conditions
Fletcher - nice try. I understand what you are trying to achieve, because that was basically an idea I had when I first found out about Pequaide's Atwood principle.
A couple of things:
You have designed the see-saw with zero mass, for zero inertia. Fair enough. But - you have included a counterweight to balance the see-saw. Due to the mechanical dis-advantage of the short arm of the see-saw, this counter-weight has to be proportionally heavier than the driver-mass-equivalent you are trying to launch upwards ... so you have sabotaged this right there.
The flaws and weaknesses of WM2D have been expounded frequently, so I won't re-irritate them here again. But I would ask, who should we believe ... WM2D, or Pequaide's numerous experiments that demonstrate an energy gain?
I know it's frustrating that nobody has closed the loop yet - that's the catch. But I see it's only because of lack of imagination, not because the basic principle is flawed.
I've abandoned the see-saw design for the 'Pequaide B - Momentum Transfer' part of the principle.
Neptune - in an earlier comment I maybe mislead you with a positive comment about using a see-saw. I meant this for the 'Pequaide A - Atwood Momentum Accumulation' stage. Not for the second part.
I think an understanding of the Bolas idea, and the Cylinders & Spheres idea gives us better ideas for closing the loop. My guess is that Bessler used the Bolas idea - or what I prefer to call 'Yoink'.
Previously I have preferred the word Impact, but it seems that can be misunderstood. The academics can sneer, but basically it's hard to find appropriate words from a physics system which has been engineered to remove the possibility of violating COE from our vocabulary.
A couple of things:
You have designed the see-saw with zero mass, for zero inertia. Fair enough. But - you have included a counterweight to balance the see-saw. Due to the mechanical dis-advantage of the short arm of the see-saw, this counter-weight has to be proportionally heavier than the driver-mass-equivalent you are trying to launch upwards ... so you have sabotaged this right there.
The flaws and weaknesses of WM2D have been expounded frequently, so I won't re-irritate them here again. But I would ask, who should we believe ... WM2D, or Pequaide's numerous experiments that demonstrate an energy gain?
I know it's frustrating that nobody has closed the loop yet - that's the catch. But I see it's only because of lack of imagination, not because the basic principle is flawed.
I've abandoned the see-saw design for the 'Pequaide B - Momentum Transfer' part of the principle.
Neptune - in an earlier comment I maybe mislead you with a positive comment about using a see-saw. I meant this for the 'Pequaide A - Atwood Momentum Accumulation' stage. Not for the second part.
I think an understanding of the Bolas idea, and the Cylinders & Spheres idea gives us better ideas for closing the loop. My guess is that Bessler used the Bolas idea - or what I prefer to call 'Yoink'.
Previously I have preferred the word Impact, but it seems that can be misunderstood. The academics can sneer, but basically it's hard to find appropriate words from a physics system which has been engineered to remove the possibility of violating COE from our vocabulary.
Fletcher - can you remove the counterweight, and replace this with a fixed stop, or a sprag-clutch, so the see-saw can't rotate clockwise from the horizontal position. Then, let the over-balanced flywheel accelerate and smash into the see-saw ...
I don't use W2MD, so I don't know what to expect. But this should work a lot better with the inertia of that massive counterbalance removed ...
I don't use W2MD, so I don't know what to expect. But this should work a lot better with the inertia of that massive counterbalance removed ...
Also, consider designing the flywheel with most of the mass concentrated in the perimeter. Or, an actual Atwoods or maybe a see-saw.
I think an ordinary flywheel probably would work, but a lot of the mass would be moving at much slower speeds. I think this would mean that it is easier to accelerate an ordinary flywheel, and therefore there is less of the Time advantage to be gained. This would need a heavier flywheel mass to get the same effect.
For the sake of the model, try for a much greater ratio between the flywheel mass and the driver mass. Although I think 100:1 should show a useful effect anyway ... it will come down to what sort of code the programmer used. If everthing is converted into Energy calculations, maybe it won't accurately model the Conservation of Momentum calculations we are hoping for ... in this kind of scenario they are mutually exclusive, so it's a coin-toss why way the programmer went. My guess is that they bow to COE at every opportunity ...
I think an ordinary flywheel probably would work, but a lot of the mass would be moving at much slower speeds. I think this would mean that it is easier to accelerate an ordinary flywheel, and therefore there is less of the Time advantage to be gained. This would need a heavier flywheel mass to get the same effect.
For the sake of the model, try for a much greater ratio between the flywheel mass and the driver mass. Although I think 100:1 should show a useful effect anyway ... it will come down to what sort of code the programmer used. If everthing is converted into Energy calculations, maybe it won't accurately model the Conservation of Momentum calculations we are hoping for ... in this kind of scenario they are mutually exclusive, so it's a coin-toss why way the programmer went. My guess is that they bow to COE at every opportunity ...
Actually, the see-saw has 'very little mass' for very little inertia - the counterweight was 1.3 kg's or thereabouts - that was necessary to balance the see-saw & was not 'sabotage' - that's why I said the Center of Masses [CoM] of each half of the see-saw was located where it was i.e. assuming that the density was uniform - that means that the CoM for the right side is about half way along & the CoM for the short left side about half way along, so it needed a counterweight so that the leverage around the pivot was the same i.e. balanced or neutral - neptune would need to consider this if building a truss or something light weight even.greendoor wrote:Fletcher - nice try. I understand what you are trying to achieve, because that was basically an idea I had when I first found out about Pequaide's Atwood principle.
A couple of things:
You have designed the see-saw with zero mass, for zero inertia. Fair enough. But - you have included a counterweight to balance the see-saw. Due to the mechanical dis-advantage of the short arm of the see-saw, this counter-weight has to be proportionally heavier than the driver-mass-equivalent you are trying to launch upwards ... so you have sabotaged this right there.
The flaws and weaknesses of WM2D have been expounded frequently, so I won't re-irritate them here again. But I would ask, who should we believe ... WM2D, or Pequaide's numerous experiments that demonstrate an energy gain?
Since you don't use the program greendoor I assume you're commenting on its veracity & accuracy from anecdotal evidence - in fact is is extremely reliable in these easy applications & they don't test it at all.
I can try & come up with something to do the trick - I can easily do it by making both sections of the see-saw the same mass [no torque] but that's the same as using constant density materials & adding a counterweight to balance the offset CoM's.greendoor wrote:Fletcher - can you remove the counterweight, and replace this with a fixed stop, or a sprag-clutch, so the see-saw can't rotate clockwise from the horizontal position. Then, let the over-balanced flywheel accelerate and smash into the see-saw ...
I don't use W2MD, so I don't know what to expect. But this should work a lot better with the inertia of that massive counterbalance removed ...
In your second scenario where there is a stop to stop it rotating clockwise until impacted then I can do that with rod latches - the trouble is this will be an unfair test because the right hand long side of the see-saw will have a CoM far further out from the pivot than the short side - when released by the latch the drive weight & flywheel will have to do extra work against the CW rotation of the see-saw upon release - do you see the problem ??? - I'll build something as soon as I'm able - bit short on time, nearly beer o'clock.
If you want the flywheel to travel more slowly then yes you can change the positions of the mass distribution & this in turn changes the proportions of Rotational Ke & Translational Ke [they both sum to TOTAL Ke] - more Translational will have it travel more slowly [as you suggest] & this will take longer, giving you more time.greendoor wrote:Also, consider designing the flywheel with most of the mass concentrated in the perimeter. Or, an actual Atwoods or maybe a see-saw.
I think an ordinary flywheel probably would work, but a lot of the mass would be moving at much slower speeds. I think this would mean that it is easier to accelerate an ordinary flywheel, and therefore there is less of the Time advantage to be gained. This would need a heavier flywheel mass to get the same effect.
For the sake of the model, try for a much greater ratio between the flywheel mass and the driver mass. Although I think 100:1 should show a useful effect anyway ... it will come down to what sort of code the programmer used. If everthing is converted into Energy calculations, maybe it won't accurately model the Conservation of Momentum calculations we are hoping for ... in this kind of scenario they are mutually exclusive, so it's a coin-toss why way the programmer went. My guess is that they bow to COE at every opportunity ...
I can change the ratio from 100:1 to 1000:1 if you want - the wheel will take an age to rotate however - you would have to admit greendoor that if it can't fling the weight higher than it started from at 1000:1 [oodles of mass] then that is not the critical factor - now pequaide & even broli have said that 500% [5x] to 1000%[10x] energy gain is obtainable - surely at 1000:1 [100x] we should be seeing something to get excited about ?
Don't blame the programmers if its not the result you were wanting - support neptune or build one yourself to collect some data that can be fed back into the program & compared.