energy producing experiments

[Fletcher]

This'll do for now - no counterweight on see-saw greendoor - actually makes it right side heavy [fortunately only 0.0001 kgs anyway] - also changed the look of & the position of the 'stop' so you don't think it's the pivot position, in case you did ?!

This is as high as it flings it - note that the drive mass goes past 3 o'cl before coming to rest - the lifted weight doesn't get to drive weight start height.

Will try a flywheel with 1000 kgs & change the mass distribution for you tomorrow but I expect you to argue that the program is erroneous.

EDIT: included 10:1 ; 100:1 ; 1000:1 ratio's.

N.B. in the 1000:1 ratio [10,000 kg flywheel] had to pin the lifted weight to the see-saw coz it slid in towards the pivot coz the lift was so slow.

N.B. no losses in sim & you must note the total height lost by the drive weight i.e. past 3 o'cl against height gained by lifted weight.

[mickegg]

Hi Fletcher

Good to see you are trying to prove/disprove the concept.

I personally have reservations about wm2d, but I have not got the experience with it that you have.

However, my main objection to the approach would be whether it actually represents the conditions that pequaide has put forward.

In the transfer of momentum by the cylinder and spheres experiment the mass remains constant.

This experiment of Neptune's that you are working on requires transfer of momentum from mass M (wheel and drive weight) to M+m (see-saw plus 2nd drive weight).

Does your sim (and will it be valid), zero the attached flywheel weight when it contacts the see-saw to try to keep the overall mass constant?


EDIT: Also perhaps it might be more accurate to use a Roberval setup to keep the forces acting at constant distance from the fulcrum?

Regards

Mick

[Fletcher]

Hi Mick .. FYI, back about page one of this thread I built roberval balances for the reasons you outline above - they were not received well IIRC, though I thought it logical.

In this see-saw sim the see-saw is virtually massless [0.0002 kg's] so it has virtually no affect on the result - its purpose is only to transfer forces.

No, the drive weight stays attached & doesn't zero its mass - this overstates the result because its momentum is still driving along with the flywheel - the distances between contact point of the drive weight at 3 o'cl to the pivot & the distance from pivot to lifted weight is 'arranged' so that the flywheel plus drive weight come to a stop i.e. don't drive on thru & don't rebound - this is analogous to the pequaide cylinder & spheres experiments where there is complete momentum transfer & the cylinder stops rotating as does the flywheel - this was a greendoor condition IIRC, though they didn't need 100% transfer & some residual flywheel velocity was ok because of such high gains to be had at high ratio's.

Mick .. this is a moving feast - neptune is trying to build a practical embodiment of the theory - so far he is getting very little empirical help or drawings from the theory advocates on just how this is supposed to come together in a workable design - he is willing to put in his time & resources to build & collect data but he needs a sound plan to work to.

This setup IMO has all the elements necessary - a drive weight that falls to get things going [atwoods]; a flywheel with momentum [cylinder]; deployed spheres [the see-saw stopping flywheel rotation, thru leverage]; resetting of the devices potential [lifting the equivalent weight].

[pequaide]

Levers? Did I say anything about transferring the momentum with levers? No.

Why doesn’t Fletcher do the experiment as proposed, I put the last (bolts for spheres) experiment together in two hours and it cost me about ten dollars.

Fletcher quote: No, the drive weight stays attached & doesn't zero its mass

How many dozens of times have I told him that you must release the drive mass.

[mickegg]

Hi Fletcher

Thanks for the reply.

I see what you are saying about the mass continuing to drive through.
This does still add to the overall mass though and I would like to see the result of zeroing.

Pequaide, I have followed this thread from the beginning with great interest. I have been racking my brain to try and devise an alternative that would allow for an easy reset.

You must understand that whilst we may accept the cylinder and spheres as valid; we also seek an alternative mechanical arrangement.
You allude to this being easy, but I think it is not.

I have an idea that might work. I shall try and work it out and post it up, as I have very little free time for practical research for the time being.

Regards

Mick

[mickegg]

As an alternative to the see-saw I wondered if the following idea might be used.

A weight sits in a cup on a flywheel, suspended by a cord that is attached via pulleys to a chosen winch diameter on the flywheel.
If the cord (rope) and pulleys do not have mass and inertia in wm2d, the experimental mass remains constant.
I've attached the rough sketch to give a better understanding of the proposal.
The cup would need to be adjusted to not interfere with the weight at the release take up point as would the rope length for proper operation.
I have only indicated a fixing point on the wheel as I don't know how to set up a rope to act tangentially on a diameter as a winch would be.
I hope you get the gist of the idea.

In the real world the rope and pulleys will have inertia ...so I don't know if this would move us any further forward.

I'm concentrating my present efforts on trying to devise a method of transfering momentum from mass M to 1/2 M at 2v.

Newton's cradle......2 balls in..........1 ball out.

Regards

Mick

[Fletcher]

Here is a pic mick where the drive weight is released to fall clear after 12 secs - that's just enough time to stop the flywheel [or very nearly] - I've used the 1000 kg flywheel [100:1 ratio] - in the shot the lifted weight has come back down a wee way - the point is that to stop the flywheel the lever couldn't rotate past about 1 o'cl & that was the max height the blue weight could get raised to.

If there were excess energy from this theory we should see the lever spinning & going past 12 o'cl [CCW rotation] with excess velocity, especially if the right side distance were 1 meter, the same radius as the flywheel - that would be evidence that you could stop the flywheel, use the energy to rotate the lever & lift the equivalent weight to the same starting height [lever at 12 o'cl] - the lever & weight would have velocity going over the top.

I'm not quite sure I understand what you are getting at in the cup & pulley's mick - I'll study it some more unless you can further clarify.

I think you want the drive weight to start & drive the flywheel but at a predetermined height the flywheel to act as its own winch [via pulley's] & in the process of lifting the drive weight back up it also stops the flywheel ?

A good plan & it might be a good way to test the theory from another practical angle - I'll see if I can build something assuming that's what you meant ? - pequaide doesn't get it so let's see if someone here can get a design that a builder could build to collect some relevant data.

[broli]

pequaide doesn't get it so let's see if someone here can get a design that a builder could build to collect some relevant data.

A reminder:

http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewt ... 5223#65223

Maybe using wood instead of metal for the construction.

[neptune]

Firstly,can I send sincere thanks to everyone who spent time and effort responding to my questions. Makes me feel glad to be a member here.
@ Pasquade. It is true that you said nothing about levers.It is said that the steam engine was first imagined by some guy watching a boiling kettle, and seeing the lid dance up and down. My guess is that he said nothing about levers either. If you look at pictures of early steam locos, you may notice that they do not resemble giant kettles on wheels. my point is that an invention goes through many iterations that bear no resemblance to the device where the effect was first observed. When I am convinced that there is no easier path, I will work on a self sustaining cylinder and spheres machine.
Re the computer sim. I am not qualified to comment on how much a sim resembles the real world, so being an optimist, I will assume until proven wrong, that it is 100%. In my expt, the secondary seesaw was a balsa wood beam about 1 inch square and it weighed about 6 gms. No counterweight was used. For many years I drove heavy trucks for a living. My truck would pull a 25 ton load up up any hill, but ONLY if the right gear ratio was chosen. Lesson here, try different " gear ratios "of the seesaw.[ move pivot to different points. ] Some thing else to try on sim. Replace seesaw with a bell-crank, that is a bent seesaw, so the left arm is bent into a vertical position. Move it from 3 oclock to 6 oclock. Fly wheel now gains more speed before it is stopped. OK so now driver weight needs to be lifted twice as far. Got to be worth a try?Dont know much about sims, but it would probably not take long.
Yet a third thing to try.Run sim in its present form, but let the weight of the fly wheel be ZERO or as close as poss. compare result to the present one.
A practical thought. easy way to make a flywheel. Use a bike wheel with the tyre replaced by scrap lead piping, secured by loads of cable ties.Non toxic alternative. retain tyre, remove inner tube . lay wheel flat and cut several doors in tyre sidewall. Fill with cement. More Later. Please keep those comments coming. Regards Neptune.

[nicbordeaux]

This being a public forum, and even if it's full of illuminated nuts like your's truly, it will be watched by people who seek new ideas, or to stifle them. They will have grasped the concept if there is anything real in it, and have simmed it night and day on Crays, and built working models. A sobering thought ?

[Fletcher]

neptune .. here is a pic of the lift when the flywheel is virtually massless [0.0001 kg] - now the drive weight has far greater velocity - the pin joint releases after 2.17 secs [as per mickegg].

But, to get the drive weight to lift the lifted weight I had to change the lever ratio by moving the blue weight closer to the pivot [a lot closer] - now the drive weight will stop before releasing but the blue weight won't be flung any higher than before.

You are absolutely correct about the mechanics of leverage - here a heavy flywheel travels very slowly & it's momentum can lift a weight at a greater distance from the pivot because of the flywheels inertia - when the flywheel is light with little inertia then the distance must be reduced - all in all they both lift to about the same height & certainly not, or anywhere near, higher than the start height although the theory says there is oodles of spear energy to accelerate the lifted weight.

I'll try mickeggs winch & pulley next.

[neptune]

Hi Fletcher and many thanks for that. The results you have obtained by sim, closely resemble those achieved by my much maligned 2seesaw expt. I guess that ultimately I will have to build the cylinder and spheres thing and advance from there as we seem to be in a blind alley with seesaws. At least we have found one thing that does not work. Did you understand the bell-crank idea? Regards neptune.

[mickegg]

Hi Fletcher

Yes, you have got the gist of the proposal.

But before that...........

Much earlier on in this thread IIRC, it was mooted that wm2d was
unable to accurately reflect momentum conservation because it instead attempts to conserve energy.

If this is true will these experimental models be unable to show what we are hoping to see?

I can't remember if anyone modeled in wm2d the cylinder and spheres experiment that pequade performed. Perhaps we should do this with the exact specs that he has provided to verify if wm2d does indeed hold a true
reflection of the momentum transfer.

BTW, I am not happy to keep suggesting others do my work for me, but for a starter, how does one wrap a string around a diameter in wm2d, so that it can unwind when released? <grin>

Regards

Mick

[Fletcher]

Actually, I'm not that happy doing others work also ;7) - but WM is a tool just like a wrench so we should use it & learn from it - I'm not aware how to wrap a string around a cylinder either - download greg's sim file a couple of pages back on the other thread [search greg last posts] - there he built an adjustable pulley i.e. it appears as if it is unwrapping & is clever.

That's why broli built the straight armed mechanical device that deployed - it could be used vertically or horizontally - the arms folded out stopping the center mass rotating - this is exactly the same as the cylinders & spheres, no different, complete momentum transfer to use the lexicon.

This is the point mick - you build a sim - someone says it doesn't represent real life because they feel .... - you build a parallel real world device - you retrofit the sim to the same or similar as the real world build - you compare notes/data from both formats - you tweak the sim if required until it behaves the same as the real world experiment - if they are wildly divergent in behaviour you can conclude that the sim programmers got it wrong & look for the reason - to draw conclusions without a valid comparison model is rubbish & petulant.

But arriving at a mechanical system that can be reliably built in both formats is proving difficult to pin down to challenge the naysayers ;7)

EDIT:

neptune .. I think I understood the bell crank idea etc but I honestly don't think anything will be learned from it - the drive weights travels further for longer but the lifted test weight has to climb higher as you said - leverage is leverage.

If you want to build a mechanical approximation of the cylinders & spheres experiment then build the broli ice skater device or something similar, IMO !

[mickegg]

Hi Fletcher

I've been re-reading from the beginning of the thread and found Broli's sim on page 11.

I'm confused though, as the program appears NOT to conserve momentum although the weights do slow the wheel down.
I shall rule it out as unsafe for these tests where we are trying to prove/disprove the theory.

If the software will not let there be a gain in energy surely we are defeated before we start?

To me it now seems clear that only physical apparatus must be used.

Many thanks for answering some of my Q's and hope it did not impinge too greatly on your "beer time" <grin>

It's also made me more determined to find some time for myself so I can try some hands on.

Regards

Mick