A very close shave

[Fletcher]

Nick .. I agree that it's best to build another test bed & leave the original - then you can do a comparison.

Are you able to take a frame from the video [or photo] & draw in the string direction & attachment point to the rim - also the keel position of just the wheel - I assume that there are no extra bolts or washers in the hub, spokes & rim setup to give it greater velocity in one direction ?

ruggerodk .. yes, nick mentions that it comes to a stop about 5 o'cl - if you follow wubbly's math he starts from a zero Pe datum of 6 o'cl for both masses - in fact by the time of deployment of the superball the rim mass has stopped at 5 o'cl - it rotates to 6 o'cl after the superball starts falling down again, IINM - this might suggest that the datum should be set slightly higher & so the estimated 20% gain could be quite conservative if there are no unaccounted for parameters or variables ?

If this test were replicated & got a real & paper gain then it needs further investigation & explanation - my feelings are that it is doing what a trebuchet does & conserving Ke but who knows, that explanation might be a fallacy if the facts & math prove different with controlled experimentation.

[beapilot]

Fletcher, quite possible, although I don't see that making a major difference, those wheels spin pretty free and true. Still, correct, there is always a "unloaded" keel position, quite right.

One small point I'll make here is that anybody who's into building stuff, however precise or loose, will know that you will every so often come across some unexpected or "abnormal" behavior or occurence. And sometimes, you take it apart to check, put it back together, and it just doesn't work. Which means that that actual wheel and it's weight and ball and nylon stay exactly as are until such time as the wife backs the car over it. Meaning I'll proceed as suggested, but with a completely different set of elements. Which means a bit of time needed as things are a bit busy just now.

Murilo, no, there is no winding around the ball. The bouncy ball is skewered though with a 1.5 mm hole, threaded on the line, and a big knot tied in the nylon and wedged into the ball. Wind the string in the opposite direction and it doesn't work for the simple reason the ball will be placed a considerable distance away from fixed weight at tdc start point. The nylon is wound from attach to wheel point left to right , and wheel revolves right to left (ccw-cw if anybody objects to that). It didn't look as if it would work wound the other way with different weight placement. Just don't ask me why ;-) And please don't anybody start hollering that it's impossible because a) I agree, b) I don't need to spend an hour making a vid to prove what I'm saying is happening.

beapilot, sounds good. Does the software show that the weight (arm) has a different weight efect on wheel depending on it's extension from rim ? It should. Interesting data if you can get "ideal" release points.

DrWhat : just peeked at MT, and yes, you can read quite a lot of similarity. Bessler promises to show more further on. Have you identiied any sketches ?

Thanks Mark. WD 40 into the old bearings (these are 1960's wheels), and this is the "Normandy" type hub with rollers. The next wheel I'll rebuild and tune as perfect as possible.

The another try ? Try this one ;-) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lk2f55CcBD4

nic,

the arm is like a piece of plastic, lightweight. I played with it and notice that the bar will not reach higher than one height it was from. The longer the arm, the more the kickback gets messed up. The shorter the arm, the stronger the kick.

I suggest someone use WM2D with this.

Joshua

[daxwc]

Thanks Nic

I wonder if the energy gain is coming from the momentum of the bike rim’s itself. If you watch the video the wheel stops at 5 o’clock and the mass of your flywheel had to stop suddenly also. Even so Conservation of Momentum would be winning not CoE. I guess I will test it tonight and see what’s happening.


/

[FunWithGravity2]

http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/download.php?id=6655


I always thought that was vertical, i just realized Broli was drawing a top view when i went to find it. Nic it was a few months before you joined so you may not have sen it. from pequaides thead. I wonder how far he has come from there ?


Keep up the good work.

Dave

[Wubbly]

Nick,
Similarities to pequaid's cylinder and spheres: The bike rim is the cylinder, and the bouncy ball is the spheres (just one sphere).
In the Atwoods Analysis thread I asked the question "how do you access the momentum and transfer the momentum instead of the kinetic energy?" No one offered an answer to this question. Your experiment brilliantly answers this question and shows how to get around this inelastic transfer problem. The answer is not to do a transfer between the Atwoods and the cylinder and spheres as two seperate experiments. Combine both experiments into one experiment. All you have to do is overbalance the cylinder and spheres, as you have shown with the lead mass attached to the rim. It is brilliant how you set up this experiment and presented the data. Thanks again for sharing.

[DrWhat]

Hey guys, how do I save YouTube videos for free? I hear there is a simple way?

[Fletcher]

Nick,
Similarities to pequaid's cylinder and spheres: The bike rim is the cylinder, and the bouncy ball is the spheres (just one sphere).
In the Atwoods Analysis thread I asked the question "how do you access the momentum and transfer the momentum instead of the kinetic energy?" No one offered an answer to this question. Your experiment brilliantly answers this question and shows how to get around this inelastic transfer problem. The answer is not to do a transfer between the Atwoods and the cylinder and spheres as two seperate experiments. Combine both experiments into one experiment. All you have to do is overbalance the cylinder and spheres, as you have shown with the lead mass attached to the rim. It is brilliant how you set up this experiment and presented the data. Thanks again for sharing.

I agree - a simple solution that incorporates the best of both experiments that pequaide posed - the question is if we know the Joules of Pe at the start & we know the Pe at max altitude of the flung mass, & assuming its greater, then some other energy was given to the rising mass as Ke & where did it come from ?

Wubbly - considering your very professional experiments that you presented in pequaide's atwood thread are you able, & would you do, a set of very controlled experiments of Nick's arrangement & give the results & your conclusions ?

[Ed]

Hey guys, how do I save YouTube videos for free? I hear there is a simple way?

You can use sites like http://www.savetube.com/ or there are free plugins for browsers like firefox.

[greendoor]

Nick - glad you acknowledged that the wheel has a keel position. I'm a believer, but for a moment I want to draw attention (again) to what the skeptical scientists will pick up on, so you can eliminate this from the equation. And i'll give you a solution for free :)

If your wheel has a keel position, and if you don't start you sequence from that keel position, the wheel is pre-loaded with potential energy (which you put into it manually). If you missed my point about Static Friction and Dynamic Friction, i'll explain it. Often with a bearing it takes more force to start it rolling from a dead stop than the force required to overcome the friction once it is rolling. This can allow you to set the wheel stationary at TDC, and it will mask the fact that you have significant PE stored up. Once the wheel starts, the bearing friction drops and reveals the stored up PE. You need to prove to your critics that this is not what is happening.

If you have one pair of weights on the wheel, I believe they should be at 3 and 6 o'clock - the keel position. You can let the driver mass (ball) ride the rim from 12 o'clock, which will accelerate the wheel. I would recommend that you maximise the mass difference between wheel and weights (make it heavy) and the ball (significantly lighter). I believe it helps to realise that the source of over-unity comes by extending the time of acceleration. This is counter-intuitive, because the "greedy" instinct is to maximise the velocity (trying to speed up the fall). It helps to play with the maths (as Wubbly did in his spreadsheet) and you will see that Momentum increases as you slow things down. In time, I believe you will come to realise that this is the source of over-unity. (Never mind that people can't see this now - it's a blind spot created by years of 'energy thinking' that disproportionally favors velocity).

In layman's terms - the more momentum you can acquire by increasing the mass of the wheel, the stronger the "yoink" you will get on your tether. Momentum = Force x Time. The Force of gravity on your ball does not change - but the slower it falls, the more Time, and hence the more Momentum you will get. And never forget that Momentum is truely a conserved quantity - it's the law.

The "yoink" on the tether must be shared with the small mass Equally. Which is also 'the law'. The tether ensures that the transfer of Momentum takes place in the same amount of Time - so very clearly this ensures an equal sharing of Force x Time - which means an equal sharing of Momentum (not Energy). This is important to understand, in face of the opposition from Wubbly and Fletcher who are enamored with Energy thinking.

It has been proven that WM2D used Energy maths, and I predict it will not represent what actually happens in this experiment. So thank you Nick for experimenting regardless of what anyone says.

Beapilot - you are young, and I know you don't understand where i'm coming from so i'll forgive you. I can see the dollar signs in your eyes, but relax - it's ok. Pequaide has put these ideas into the public domain, and as far as I know you can't patent a scientific principle. At the moment he is just considered a nutter - but in time I believe he will be recognised as one of the great physicists for exposing the fact that the Emperor is actually Naked. You seem to be worried about the right people getting the right recognition. Just do a search on this forum, and you won't have to come across as being so ignorant.

Fletcher - it's going to take a lot of convincing, and maybe you will never ever be convinced. But Energy just isn't what it's cracked up to be. Please Google "energy misdefined" - there is a brilliant website by another nutter who speaks the truth. It has taken my quite some time to digest what this guy is saying, but it backs up Pequaide 100% and explains how we have muddled our thinking about Energy for too long.

Bessler was the smoking gun.

[greendoor]

Ooops - here's a solution ... use more pairs of weights, 4 or 8 equidistant, so your wheel is more balanced. It will also make it heavier, which will maximise the effect as explained above. To please the hardest skeptic, you will need to end up with a heavy balanced flywheel concentrating the mass in the rim (right back to what Pequide explained). Pequaide's was addressing the academics first - which is why his approach doesn't appeal to the less educated hands-on experimenter. But in time you will see he is right. Unfortunately, the academics can't see his points yet, because they are blinded by years of conditioning. If you are in a crowd of people all going "ooh" and "aah" over the Emperor's New Clothes, you aren't going to admit that you can't actually see them for yourself ... you will go along with the crowd that pays the bills ... [edit: "energy" being the relatively new emperor's clothes]

Read what renowned physicists such as Feynman have said about Energy ... it may shock you.

Another solution I offer about avoiding a keel position is to consider making a reciprocating beam, rather than a wheel. Like a see-saw/teeter-totter. You could use the horizontal keel position - OR - you could use the full height of fall, because when one end hits the bottom, the other end is fully reset. It might be slightly easier to get a reciprocating beam to self-sustain - just my opinion. My reason to believe this is because you have to allow the heavy balanced system accelerate (which I would tend to call the 'Atwoods' part, incorrectly I know, but I don't have a better word) - but then you have to quickly decelerate this using the tether. Wheel builders are probably thwarted by their desire to make their wheel spin, and miss the fact that there has to be this acceleration and deceleration. This automatically happens in a reciprocating beam, so it's harder to shoot yourself in the foot.

Just my opinions - feel free to ignore me. I'm keen to see anyone succeed - i've explained my motivation in previous threads, so won't repeat them.

Trust me Beapilot - i'm not the evil bastard you think I am ... :)

[Tarsier79]

Gday

It is refreshing to see Nick posting video pointing to a theory that he believes may be a critical element to the harvesting of gravity in the wheel (when others, including myself prefer to keep the "solution" to ourselves). There have been some fairly recent posts I have read that I believe relates to this experiment. PE is a big problem you are going to have to overcome. If you balance the weight around the wheel, it will not work(at least in this configuration.) What made you put the weight on the wheel perimeter? and will moving this weight affect the outcome? Yes. I think if you remove the extra PE of the weight on the rim you will have disappointing results. What you might also find is the added height your ball gains through its launch and subsequent path will be relative to the amount of energy lost with the weight on the rim. If you catch the ball after it has reached the apex of its flight and the weight attached to the rim hasn't reached, or doesn't have enough energy to reach or preferably pass the 12:00 point of the wheel, you are looking at lost energy. If the rim weight doesn't reach 12:00, you will have to extract enough energy from the final fall of the ball to reset the mechanism.

Even considering your initial findings, and perhaps even negative comments from members, there is more than one way to skin a cat. Perhaps there is a way to extract the extra energy you require on the second rotation. My point is that this mechanism is but the start, and some of the results you see are positive, and some are negative, but don't take the negative to be "The End." Once you have completed whatever measurements can be made with this mechanism, you need to extrapolate on the design and move on. Merely replicating and balancing isn't going to be the answer here.

Good luck, I think the principle behind "take 1" has some merit and I look forward to the next incarnation.

[nicbordeaux]

Joshua : I assume you are working with one fixed weight and one arm which rotates ? This won't represent the "unwind" I guess. What happens if you make the fixed weight say 1.5, 2 or 4 times the "arm" ?

Tarisier79 : I don't think it's crucial, just interesting, and of course potentially of use in building a working wheel, though you'd need to do a bit of thinking as to the mechanical aspects. Getting "unity" shouldn't be too hard with the weight reaching the height it does. Just have a rod sticking out at some point so that when the ball falls back down over it that ke is used to pull the counterweight back up from 5 to 12. Not 5 thru 6 to 12, 5 straight back up to 12.

Greendoor, thanks, but I'll let you play with this too. Don't take that as a insult in any way, I respect your thinking, I'd like to see you build this one ;-) I have my own ideas on what is happening and why, but consider for the moment that that is totally irrelevant. The only thing that matters is to make the thing or anything else perfectly buildable by anybody. Then we can start arguing about what type of energy is being caused by what, what it all amounts to. As to Peq, that thread was a real looser, armchair philosophy, all words and no way of proving anything conclusively. Not saying it wasn't of interest, just that getting that excited and aggravated about a baked bin tin being rotated manually with two marbles attached to it doesn't amount to much. But heck, I'm a silly layman (average joe in US terms ?), I am blissfully unaware of all these matters of great import, I am just trying to create a device which will run on it's own and put out some decent juice. Without really believing that it's possible, or worrrying overly if nothing arises.

Wubbly and Fletcher : thanks both of you. Glad this ties in with the "Atwoods" stuff. Matter of fact, there is another very simple way of obtaining a similar effect : to keep things simple, you stick a fishing pole on a wheel and tie a weight to tip of pole. Wheel starts to rotate, pole ploys/bends meaning weight is not moving, pole whips forward and overtakes wheel, weight takes off in direction of alpha centauri etc.... You need to know a bit about fishing blank dynamics to get any joy. or just play around until you inevitably hit one of the many posible "workers".


The video is now down, have fun everybody, and please note that at no point did I make any claims about overunity or else. The debunkers can shout themselves hoarse, they have no public except themselves :-))))

[nicbordeaux]

EDIT : Sorry, double post.

[beapilot]

Nick,

I used the arm vertical on the wheel so the top of the arm has the same weight as the weight on the top of the wheel. The arm then falls down and then the arm flings upwards. There are certain release points depending on the length of the arm. No, this is not related to the string because the program is bad at the string.

Placing more weight on the offset weight will not do any good to the reset.

Your best bet is to study it through video and keep doing tests.

Sorry,

Joshua

[Grimer]

From a 12 start with 2 x 50 grams on a bike wheel, I get a averaged rise at 6 of over 15% of the total mass. Don't believe that ? Nor do I. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=377_XEknNKg and please tell me where I'm wrong :-) Otherwise I shall have to build a wheel contraption which takes advantage of all these dirty little mechanical tricks and just keeps on running. That would be a real hassle.

Yeah, I know, another dumb bike wheel experiment. But it's all adding up very fast.

Good fun, anyway.

I've only just started reading this thread but I don't seem to be able to open the video. It says it's private or something.