Atwoods Analysis

[Fletcher]

Well broli .. I think most here might not view it as FREE ENERGY even if you succeed in giving large amounts of velocity to a small mass - that's because there has been a drop in Potential Energy [take the trebuchet as as example] - the counterweight must be man cranked back to its original elevation so the gain in Ke was at the expense of the Pe of the original conditions - so whilst there was an increase in the small masses Ke it wasn't for free - that's why there is obvious interest in closing the loop & replenishing Pe to repeat the cycle.

I think wubbly took the atwoods experiments as far as possible & in amazingly good spirit - he showed good skill & experimental endeavour - now it seems pequaide is going to use his pillow block arrangement as the basis for his pivoted cylinder & sphere's experiment [as has been suggested numerous times] - & as you also previously said, i.e. that was needed to get some go forward - who better than pequaide to do these experiments to confirm his math - equally valid is the premiss that actually turning the math into a successful experiment is the real butt clincher - those who have actual experience building mechanical arrangements know that this will be where the major difficulties will lie i.e. translating theory into practice - if pequaide can start that process of validating his theories with practical experiments that can then serve as the platform to launch from to test other parts of the theory then that would be useful to all - then perhaps you might see other capable members chiming in with ideas for improvement or better isolation of the desired effect that is sought - put flesh to real bones.

Just a note- this discussion board is primarily about the search for a solution to Bessler's Wheel - by default a search for Free Energy & perhaps PM - there is nothing to say that it must be an open source project & that is left to each individual to decide whether to share but it is not a prerequisite here - www.overunity.com has a banner proclaiming & is overtly open source yet in many ways it is just as self serving for some - I get equally annoyed broli as you do with members over there who try to shut down open sourcing for patenting etc when they clearly read the terms of being members & are happy to read others posts on that forum daily - it is proclaimed open source - perhaps we should all take a closer look at ourselves & our behaviour depending on what forum & boards we belong too & make the distinction & respect the administrators intent & then adhere to it.

[broli]

Well broli .. I think most here might not view it as FREE ENERGY even if you succeed in giving large amounts of velocity to a small mass - that's because there has been a drop in Potential Energy [take the trebuchet as as example] - the counterweight must be man cranked back to its original elevation so the gain in Ke was at the expense of the Pe of the original conditions - so whilst there was an increase in the small masses Ke it wasn't for free - that's why there is obvious interest in closing the loop & replenishing Pe to repeat the cycle.

In your scenario who would be performing the experiments, a monkey? Of course you first calculate any inputed energy before you rejoice about the kinetic energy of the speeding mass. How else can you calculate energy differential??? Come on Fletcher are you serious ?

Input energy can be potential or kinetic both can be calculated by a 13 year old.

I think wubbly took the atwoods experiments as far as possible & in amazingly good spirit - he showed good skill & experimental endeavour - now it seems pequaide is going to use his pillow block arrangement as the basis for his pivoted cylinder & sphere's experiment [as has been suggested numerous times] - & as you also previously said, i.e. that was needed to get some go forward - who better than pequaide to do these experiments to confirm his math - equally valid is the premiss that actually turning the math into a successful experiment is the real butt clincher - those who have actual experience building mechanical arrangements know that this will be where the major difficulties will lie i.e. translating theory into practice - if pequaide can start that process of validating his theories with practical experiments that can then serve as the platform to launch from to test other parts of the theory then that would be useful to all - then perhaps you might see other capable members chiming in with ideas for improvement or better isolation of the desired effect that is sought - put flesh to real bones.

You are overestimating the experimental setups there. There's nothing mechanically challenging about this concept. You just need some bulk materials, basic tools and bearings.

Just a note- this discussion board is primarily about the search for a solution to Bessler's Wheel - by default a search for Free Energy & perhaps PM - there is nothing to say that it must be an open source project & that is left to each individual to decide whether to share but it is not a prerequisite here - www.overunity.com has a banner proclaiming & is overtly open source yet in many ways it is just as self serving for some - I get equally annoyed broli as you do with members over there who try to shut down open sourcing for patenting etc when they clearly read the terms of being members & are happy to read others posts on that forum daily - it is proclaimed open source - perhaps we should all take a closer look at ourselves & our behaviour depending on what forum & boards we belong too & make the distinction & respect the administrators intent & then adhere to it.

I agree there and this is the irony. They act like a pack of hyenas, lurking from the bushes for the right time to go in and snag the works of others without permission or credit and sometimes even call it theirs.

[broli]

delete

[Fletcher]

Do you not see the irony of your last monkey post broli - it has been repeatedly called for time after time - what is the input of energy to commence any experiment that starts of from a dynamic starting point & ends up with that same flywheel stopped ? - wubbly also recently asked for pequaide to isolate & quantify it ?

In pequaide's most recent post he wants the flywheel to have rotational Ke at about 19 rpm - he calls that momentum & that's fine - but what was the energy in joules expended to get it there - that's the input energy - previously perhaps I was a bit confused - the thread went on for over a year - there it was suggested to attain the rpm required to deploy the tethers & masses properly was by hand spinning the cylinder - this, I thought, got changed to a rim riding mass that acted as the impellor, to attain the desired rpm, then the impellor mass dropped off - this was an attempt to scientifically quantify the input energy, I thought, using a modified atwoods arrangement ? - of course it needs to be lifted up again to perform its function & close the loop - it then became apparent that perhaps the impellor rim mass could also be the one to absorb all the flywheel momentum & be hurled upwards to reset the device - engineering that seemed problematic however judging by the lack of response from all parties - no springs or levers, inelastic or elastic collisions, Conservation of Momentum or Ke, & launch ramps had losses.

Anyway, no point dwelling in the past - pequiade is working on a modified atwoods using a pillow block & flywheel to incorporate the cylinder & spheres extension - lets see if it can be engineered to perform at least some of the necessary functions to please everybody with an interest in it - that certainly won't happen by name calling - not many 13 year olds visit this forum so we may have a problem calculating input energy even if it can be Pe &/or Ke - but at least we all acknowledge that we need to know what the input energy is at last.

P.S. I just as incredulously don't know why you are so super excited about methods of giving small masses velocity & Ke ? - but I'm sure that seige engine recreationists, ice skaters & perhaps Nasa scientists are probably just as interested - just use the previously stabilizing spin of a satellite to give velocity to a tethered & released mass at the right time & you have a weapon for space - your satellite will now be unstable though.

[Wubbly]

In pequaide's most recent post he wants the flywheel to have rotational Ke at about 19 rpm - he calls that momentum & that's fine - but what was the energy in joules expended to get it there...

Actually pequaide did answer the question in a reverse sort of way.

A one kilogram mass need only drop 2.08 meters to accelerate a 40 kilogram Atwood’s to 1 meter per second....

How much KE will a 1 kg mass have after it falls 2.08 m? Calculate velocity squared and plug into KE equation.
v^2 = 2da
v^2 = 2 * 2.08 [m] * 9.81 [m/s^2]
v^2 = 40.8 [m^2/s^2]

KE = 1/2 m v^2
KE = 1/2 * 1 [kg] * 40.8 [m^2/s^2]
KE = 20.4 [kg m^2/s^2]
KE = 20.4 [J] - This is his input energy.

So a 1 kg mass will have 20.4 J after falling 2.08 m.

So a 41 kg rim, diameter of 1 m, rotating at 19 rpm should have 20.4 J of KE
(41 kg because the rim is 40 kg plus the 1 kg mass).
Distance travelled = circumference = PI * diameter = 3.14 * 1 [m] = 3.14 [m].
It travels this distance 19 times a minute, so 19 [rev/min] * 3.14 [m/rev] / 60 [s/min] = .99 [m/s] = approximately 1 [m/s].
Now assume the whole mass of the rim is concentrated at the circumference of the rim, and it is traveling at 1 [m/s].
KE = 1/2 m v^2
KE = 1/2 * 41 [kg] * (1 [m/s])^2
KE = 20.5 [J]

Is that how pequaide calculated the KE of his rim?:

[Fletcher]

I think so wubbly, though rightly pequaide should answer that to clarify - I believe he simplified his assumptions & assumed mostly rim concentrated mass so that he didn't have to deal with tedious center of gyration adjustments for mass distribution & hub, spokes etc - fair enough for a ball park ready reckoner - real data might show a difference though probably not hugely significant in the scheme of things - pin frictions & air frictions will also add to the tally required but 20.5 Joules is probably a fair eye balling figure to use.

N.B. as you know the flywheel will have both translational & rotational Ke [due to that mass distribution] which might effect the Joules required to achieve the rpm in the time & distance allowed ?

So, all that's left is the engineering challenge of an actual device to achieve complete momentum transfer & reset ?

[greendoor]

So, all that's left is the engineering challenge of an actual device to achieve complete momentum transfer & reset ?

That's how I see it - and it's easier said than done, so I can understand your frustration.

Since Pequaide drew the Atwoods idea to our attention, and since Wubbly appears to have created this thread to debunk Peqaide's idea - I believe it is only fair that Pequaide's free energy principle be presented clearly.

There are three parts to Pequaide's energy creation process - and what we call the 'Atwoods' is only the first part. As I see it - Wubbly has proven that the Atwoods part does what it is supposed to do: we can create variable quantities of Momentum - potentially very large amounts of Momentum - from the same small input Potential Energy (a small mass falling the same height). The variable parameter is Time. Momentum = Force x Time, and we can take all day if we want to. This is achieved by using increasing amounts of Balanced mass (which never needs resetting).

The second part is the transfering of most or all of this Momentum from the heavy balanced system back to the small mass that fell. This is the engineering challenge. Using simple elastic collisions won't work - because as soon as the small mass gets some Momentum, it takes off like a bee out of hell. Unfortunately, that means the impulse Time required to transfer all the Momentum is not available, and the large mass retains proportionally more of the Momentum. Pequaide has presented various methods of transfering Momentum that can result in a complete transfer of Momentum. There are probably many other methods - I have some ideas I could share in a non-hostile environment.

The third part is using the momentum of the small mass to create vertical lift of the small mass. That should be trivial, but obviously is causing some mental pain for some here.

I think there is a basic personality clash between many people here. Pequaide's approach is more scientific - setting up experiments for each part and testing and measuring the results. Why he bothers to throw his pearls before swine, I don't know - but personally i'm extremely grateful.

This forum seems to attract relatively non-academic dreamers and builders who just want the plans for a working wheel delivered to their doorstep. Frothing at the mouth is not an attractive look, and not the best way to get what you want, IMO.

I must admit that - like Broli -my knee-jerk reaction to some of the rubbish being posted here was to froth was to rant and rave about the sheer ignorance. But what's the point? Let the ignorant remain ignorant.

Just understand that there are 3 parts to Pequaide's proposal - and he is trying to present experimental proof for each seperate part. This means that - for the purpose of the experiments - you have to input energy. None of the parts on their own is a self-resetting free energy device. BUT - an intelligent child should be able to see the blindingly obvious: if each three parts do what we expect them to do, the creation of energy and a working Bessler wheel seem entirely possible with solid Newtonian physics. Yes - it will shatter some sacred 'energy' myths - but the holes in the Energy propaganda machine have been showing for years but people are too intimidated to question it.


The transfer of momentum from heavy/slow to light/fast is IMO the biggest engineering challenge. I believe the key is to maintain Force over Time - so that requires a physical connection between the masses, until the heavy mass has been brought to a complete stop (ideally). Thinking along these lines is very fruitful, IMO.

A Continually Variable Transmission might well be good for this task. As the Atwoods (flywheel, see-saw, pendulum - whatever) decelerates, obviously the speed is constantly changing. The distance between the two mass wants to be constantly changing - hence the engineering challenge of maintaining the transfer of Impulse.

A simple idea that might be experimented with is the use of hydraulics. Imagine a vertical pipe of water, with check valves to ensure it can only flow uphill. Imagine a big rubber tank at the base. Imagine that a heavy/slow mass impacts into this rubber tank and squeezes the water upwards. We know that given a small mass dropping a small height, we can create almost any amount of Momentum (Force x Time) by varying the mass ratio of the 'Atwoods'.

So - how much Momentum do we need to squeeze water (a viable mass) upwards? If we keep on increasing the Momentum, there must be a break-even point where the weight of water we can squeeze upwards exceeds the weight of water falling down that is powering the Atwoods that creates the Momentum. The variable is Time - we might have to wait several minutes while a massive Atwoods slowly accelerates - but once it has acquired all that Force x Time, imagine the slow, powerful squeeze forcing the water upwards...

I would prefer a mechanical arrangement, but maybe this is within experimental grasp ...

[DrWhat]

What about this idea.

A are three heavy weights creating balance.
B is a small mass either a disk or a ball.
C is a track or cavity containing small mass B.
When B and one of the As are next to each other the device swings. The momentum then squeezes the mass B between (NB) the brown column and the outer edge of the red track, and because of the V shape of the temporary cavity, mass B fires up rapidly and via the track, ends up on the opposite side restarting the process.


Damian

[broli]

Do you not see the irony of your last monkey post broli - it has been repeatedly called for time after time - what is the input of energy to commence any experiment that starts of from a dynamic starting point & ends up with that same flywheel stopped ? - wubbly also recently asked for pequaide to isolate & quantify it ?

In pequaide's most recent post he wants the flywheel to have rotational Ke at about 19 rpm - he calls that momentum & that's fine - but what was the energy in joules expended to get it there - that's the input energy - previously perhaps I was a bit confused - the thread went on for over a year - there it was suggested to attain the rpm required to deploy the tethers & masses properly was by hand spinning the cylinder - this, I thought, got changed to a rim riding mass that acted as the impellor, to attain the desired rpm, then the impellor mass dropped off - this was an attempt to scientifically quantify the input energy, I thought, using a modified atwoods arrangement ? - of course it needs to be lifted up again to perform its function & close the loop - it then became apparent that perhaps the impellor rim mass could also be the one to absorb all the flywheel momentum & be hurled upwards to reset the device - engineering that seemed problematic however judging by the lack of response from all parties - no springs or levers, inelastic or elastic collisions, Conservation of Momentum or Ke, & launch ramps had losses.

Anyway, no point dwelling in the past - pequiade is working on a modified atwoods using a pillow block & flywheel to incorporate the cylinder & spheres extension - lets see if it can be engineered to perform at least some of the necessary functions to please everybody with an interest in it - that certainly won't happen by name calling - not many 13 year olds visit this forum so we may have a problem calculating input energy even if it can be Pe &/or Ke - but at least we all acknowledge that we need to know what the input energy is at last.

P.S. I just as incredulously don't know why you are so super excited about methods of giving small masses velocity & Ke ? - but I'm sure that seige engine recreationists, ice skaters & perhaps Nasa scientists are probably just as interested - just use the previously stabilizing spin of a satellite to give velocity to a tethered & released mass at the right time & you have a weapon for space - your satellite will now be unstable though.

If you want to hand crank the device you will first need to calculate the moment of inertia of the setup by doing some drop experiments, this quantity will remain constant. Afterwards you just time the rpm just before you release the small mass and combining that with the former will give you a highly accurate kinetic energy figure. You do not an engineerings degree for that. I have mentioned this quite a few times. To calculate output all you do is use a photo gate circuit that measures the speed of the velocity of the mass. Simple no?

I never cared about resetting anything. Just like the wright brothers didn't care about incorporating a cockpit and passenger seats in their first flight models. If the figures show energy gain then the flood gates will open to many more experimenters who will figure out 1001 ways to reset it.

[Fletcher]

DrWhat .. the cherry pip squeezer analogue ?!

Interestingly, we talk about using the kinetic energy of a 1 kg mass falling a distance of 2 meters approx to provide the input energy required - this mass is from a standing start - we don't talk about the small masses momentum after falling 2 meters driving the system - then at the end we talk about the energy required to raise the small mass to reset - in between we talk about momentum & elastic collisions & not energy gathering mechanics like springs & even levers ?

That greendoor & broli might be where some of the communication & understanding problems arise - to someone using energy benchmarks for capacity to do mechanical work then it might appear that the jockey is jumping mounts half way thru the race & back again.

The competent builders of this forum have largely been silent - perhaps they too are having difficulty visualizing the connections between the three parts of the pequaide theory - only by testing each part as pequaide & wubbly have done may a solution to those connections become apparent to someone here - greendoor, I give you credit for trying to bridge the gap creatively.

So, all that's left is the engineering challenge of an actual device to achieve complete momentum transfer & reset ?

That's how I see it - and it's easier said than done, so I can understand your frustration.

Yep, that's going to be the hard part to sort out mechanically.

Since Pequaide drew the Atwoods idea to our attention, and since Wubbly appears to have created this thread to debunk Peqaide's idea - I believe it is only fair that Pequaide's free energy principle be presented clearly.

I think you have that entirely wrong greendoor - wubbly seems to me to have carefully & methodically tested the atwoods part of the hypothesis & given some hard data to confirm the math - he then lets you decide for yourself if his atwoods experiment is an analogue of a complete inelastic collision conserving kinetic energy or something else conserving momentum - one might be more useful than the other in terms of actually doing mechanical work which relates to your comment above.

There are three parts to Pequaide's energy creation process - and what we call the 'Atwoods' is only the first part. As I see it - Wubbly has proven that the Atwoods part does what it is supposed to do: we can create variable quantities of Momentum - potentially very large amounts of Momentum - from the same small input Potential Energy (a small mass falling the same height). The variable parameter is Time. Momentum = Force x Time, and we can take all day if we want to. This is achieved by using increasing amounts of Balanced mass (which never needs resetting).

The second part is the transfering of most or all of this Momentum from the heavy balanced system back to the small mass that fell. This is the engineering challenge. Using simple elastic collisions won't work - because as soon as the small mass gets some Momentum, it takes off like a bee out of hell. Unfortunately, that means the impulse Time required to transfer all the Momentum is not available, and the large mass retains proportionally more of the Momentum. Pequaide has presented various methods of transfering Momentum that can result in a complete transfer of Momentum. There are probably many other methods - I have some ideas I could share in a non-hostile environment.

The third part is using the momentum of the small mass to create vertical lift of the small mass. That should be trivial, but obviously is causing some mental pain for some here.

That's probably pretty easy as you say after you have used all the momentum as per the hypothesis [see part two].

... rave deleted ...

Just understand that there are 3 parts to Pequaide's proposal - and he is trying to present experimental proof for each seperate part. This means that - for the purpose of the experiments - you have to input energy. None of the parts on their own is a self-resetting free energy device. BUT - an intelligent child should be able to see the blindingly obvious: if each three parts do what we expect them to do, the creation of energy and a working Bessler wheel seem entirely possible with solid Newtonian physics. Yes - it will shatter some sacred 'energy' myths - but the holes in the Energy propaganda machine have been showing for years but people are too intimidated to question it.

The transfer of momentum from heavy/slow to light/fast is IMO the biggest engineering challenge. I believe the key is to maintain Force over Time - so that requires a physical connection between the masses, until the heavy mass has been brought to a complete stop (ideally). Thinking along these lines is very fruitful, IMO.

A Continually Variable Transmission might well be good for this task. As the Atwoods (flywheel, see-saw, pendulum - whatever) decelerates, obviously the speed is constantly changing. The distance between the two mass wants to be constantly changing - hence the engineering challenge of maintaining the transfer of Impulse.

A simple idea that might be experimented with is the use of hydraulics. Imagine a vertical pipe of water, with check valves to ensure it can only flow uphill. Imagine a big rubber tank at the base. Imagine that a heavy/slow mass impacts into this rubber tank and squeezes the water upwards. We know that given a small mass dropping a small height, we can create almost any amount of Momentum (Force x Time) by varying the mass ratio of the 'Atwoods'.

So - how much Momentum do we need to squeeze water (a viable mass) upwards? If we keep on increasing the Momentum, there must be a break-even point where the weight of water we can squeeze upwards exceeds the weight of water falling down that is powering the Atwoods that creates the Momentum. The variable is Time - we might have to wait several minutes while a massive Atwoods slowly accelerates - but once it has acquired all that Force x Time, imagine the slow, powerful squeeze forcing the water upwards...

I would prefer a mechanical arrangement, but maybe this is within experimental grasp ...

Private forums can avoid a lot of hostility greendoor [invitation only] but then some people like hostility & trash talking - I figured pequiade presented his theory & experiments to try & bridge the gap between the three parts to it - obviously part two is the most critical & contentious, parts one & three not show stoppers - but it's not always easy to get traction for an idea - the best you can do is present it as pequaide has done & fill in as many of the gaps as possible & hope someone fills the rest in for you - if you [not you personally] had the solution you'd have built it yourself & obviously pequaide has build skills that broli does not - the three of you could get somewhere if you worked together.

[DrWhat]

Fletcher,

Hi, looking at my simple design I believe it fulfills all 3 requirements of pequaide's energy creation device.

Maybe the dynamics aren't as efficient as I'm expecting them to be. Or I could just be naiive and still fail to grasp the idea.

1. We have a small mass "attached" to a heavy tri mass wheel. The small mass is enough to cause rotation, albeit slow acceleration.

2. The larger mass is made to stop as it "squeezes" the smaller mass and the force of the squeeze launches the smaller mass. Hence the momentum of the larger mass is transferred to the smaller mass.

3. That momentum transfer causes the lift of the small mass along the path.

4. A resetting occurs at the other end of the path and then the 3 large masses begin to rotate the opposite way, etc, due to the fact that the small mass is now "attached" to the wheel again on the other side.

This device would swing one way, then the other.

The only issue here I see is the "cherry pip squeeze" which I believe could work well with the correct materials.

Damian

[pequaide]

I dropped (as in an Atwood's) masses of about 500g and 1 kilogram off the circumference of the 41.6 kilogram rim wheel, I also measures and corrected for bearing resistance. The wheel accelerated as if it was purely a rim of 43.2 kilograms.

I need to engineer two releases and give it a paint job and it will be ready for the field.

[Fletcher]

Damian .. I think it is a creative idea - I'm not sure it would work as intended though - the cherry pip squeeze technique relies on an escape path [you've done that] & the right amount of friction - here's what I mean - too little friction between the cavity wall & small mass & it moves up too easily, possibly not absorbing all the flywheel momentum i.e. the overshoot situation where the mass rises without being 'forcibly ejected' - it may not make the required height to transfer across & also stop the flywheel dead - the second scenario is where there is too much friction coefficient & it jams - what's required is just the right amount of friction, enough to halt the flywheel while the mass is squeezed upwards until the pressure is too much & it 'fires' upwards.

If that were to work then squeezing the mass is kind of like storing potential energy & wouldn't that be like a spring ?

Perhaps someone else has a different take on what might occur ?

P.S. great stuff pequaide.

[Wubbly]

Why he bothers to throw his pearls before swine, I don't know

Let the ignorant remain ignorant.

And now we are ignorant swine. That's real professional.

As I see it - Wubbly has proven that the Atwoods part does what it is supposed to do: we can create variable quantities of Momentum - potentially very large amounts of Momentum - from the same small input Potential Energy (a small mass falling the same height).

I did not prove this. The momentum was a theoretical calculation. Using logic, reason, and extrapolation, it was concluded that the theoretical momentum does not measure work or energy. An equation using velocity squared predicted a constant value. A tool that captures and stores energy measured a constant value. And greendoor sees that the experiment proves we can create variable quantities of momentum? Boggles the mind.

[wheelrite]

felt motivated to post this
regards
Jon