energy producing experiments

[pequaide]

I would break the experiment up into two parts.

Wrap your 600 mm bicycle wheel with a string and suspend a 100 gram mass from the edge. Let the 100 grams accelerate the wheel for one meter, and then determine the final velocity. This will tell you the rotational inertia of the wheel and it gives you your initial velocity. Now you know how much motion is caused by a 100 gram mass dropping one meter.

Let’s say that the rotational inertia of the wheel is 1200 grams and at the end of a drop of one meter (for only the 100 grams) the wheel and the mass are moving 1.228 m/sec.

Step two: rewind the very same mass around the very same wheel, hold the mass upon against the wheel, and rotate it in the opposite direction (of the drop) and release it (try 9 o’clock: and we are now moving counterclockwise) after you have accelerated it to about 1.228 m/sec. Now some people think this is unacceptable to do it by hand; no it is not we already know how to make something move 1.228 m/sec and we know exactly how much it will cost use (100 grams dropped 1 meter). Is this method going to be accurate? No. But it is going to convince you that there is something in this.

The 100 grams is 13th the total mass. To acquire all the momentum of the system (when the wheel is stopped) it will have to be moving 15.964 m/sec: That would allow it to rise 13 meters. The 100 grams can rise 13 meters and it was dropped 1.

Don’t get in the line of fire; the motion is violent.

We can do more accurate experiments after you are convinced of this concept. I am persuaded that it works.

[greendoor]

The catch is that we aren't comparing apples with apples. A balanced 1200 g wheel with a peripheral velocity of 1.228 m/s is NOT the same as that same wheel with an additional 100 g unbalancing it, and no doubt increasing the maximum diameter and hence the peripheral velocity of that 100 g weight.

I appreciate that if you truly can observe a 13 fold increase in energy this is probably nitpicking. But you have to admit that it will take more energy to spin up this unbalanced wheel.

I still believe in the maths and the basic principle at stake here. I hope that you are right, and that this is the heart of Bessler's secret. But the skeptics will seize any opportunity to discredit this.

We need a simple experiment that can show a real gain in elevation by a small mass from the dropping of an equivalent small mass. These ideas are getting very close to that ideal.

[pequaide]

Yes: I know that mass further from the point of rotation will be moving a bit faster; that is why I chose the words “rotational inertia�. The wheel acts like a thin rim of that mass. And yes the attached 100 gram mass is moving a little faster, The rim will average that out by moving a little slower, but the total momentum still remains the same.

When the spinning mass in a 1,200 gram balanced rim is moving 1.228 m/sec it has a momentum of 1.474. It does not matter if a 100 gram mass is attached to the surface of the rim or not; the rim itself still has a momentum of 1.474.

When the spinning mass of a 1,200 gram balanced rim is moving 1.228 m/sec it has a momentum of 1.474. It does not matter if a 100 gram mass is hanging from the rim’s circumference; the rim still has a momentum of 1.474. Here every particle in the 100 gram mass is moving 1.228 m/sec.

What happens next (in an experiment) is independent of what we have now.

What if the rim in the second paragraph is spinning in a horizontal plane? The 100 grams will cause no acceleration of the rim.

What if you drop the mass in paragraph three just as you obtain 1.228 m/sec? Dropping the mass does not instantaneously give the rim momentum; the rim must have had that much momentum before the 100 grams was dropped.

It is apparent that the spinning rim has the momentum; as that defined by Isaac Newton.

Let’s say you have a 1,200 gram vertically spinning balanced rim whose mass is moving 1.228 m/sec. and you have a 100 gram mass attached at 6 o’clock. The 100 gram mass on its own (with a velocity of 1.228 m/sec) is capable of rising 7.686 cm (d = ½ v²/a); if the mass is left attached to the rim it will rise 1.00 meter. So it is fair to say that 92.3% of the energy is in the rim; it is also correct to say that 92.3% of the momentum is in the rim.

If all this momentum was in the 100 gram mass it would rise 13 meters (d =1/2 * 15.96 * 15.96 / 9.81m/sec/sec).

[nicbordeaux]

We need a simple experiment that can show a real gain in elevation by a small mass from the dropping of an equivalent small mass.

How about a balanced gizmo. To one end is a tethered mass. On release from vertical under the pull of G the ball heads earthwards pulling gizmo round with it, usual scenario, ball is flung. If ball reaches higher position than release, position of rotary gizmo is irrelevant ? It is balanced so why would it matter where it settles ? It is just a point against which the tether acts (or it acts on the tether) to alter ball (mass) trajectory/velocity and gain height.

Second case scenario, "side" of gizmo which ball is attached to is a few grammes heavier than other. Ball as previous case gains height, "heavier side" sinks to 6 or whatever. Calculation is ball in grammes + height gain in mm equals x g/mm, "keeling overweight" (diff in grammes between heavy side and light side) in grammes + negative height in mm equals y g/mm; x - y is "OU" if positive ?

Been a long hard day and math isn't a lingo I speak, just mucked around with a gizmo over a cig and cafeine, and the results look promising. But before wasting any time, need to know that any positive (unlikely) results will be accepted, that people agree on the modus operandum (sound's unaturally clever, dunnit ?)

EDIT: Heck, modus operandum is cool, but wouldn't "protocol" sound like, I dunno, more official ?

[Fletcher]

Protocol :

Step 1 : devise a system that allows best most efficient substitution of m1v1 for m2v2 less system frictional losses, if CoE can be violated.

Done - pequiades cylinder & spheres experiments followed by nicks single tethered bouncy ball experiments.

Step 2 : devise a drive system to give the flywheel impetus & acceleration required to deploy tethered projectiles correctly.

Done - half atwoods hanging mass turning flywheel or rim riding mass that disconnects the system at critical speed [1.228 m/s]

Step 3 : measure Pe lost from the drive system in Joules.

Step 4 : measure the Pe gain in height as Joules achieved from the tethered mass being released & flung upwards at the best angle - if no release then capture the velocity information of the projectile to estimate height gain.

Step 5 : sum the two Pe differences to get a net Pe gain or [loss] in Joules.

N.B.1. both systems cannot be treated in complete isolation.

N.B.2. nicks bouncy ball experiments had the drive mass & tethered mass accelerating the flywheel - the tethered mass halted the movement of the flywheel & drive mass completely as per pequiades requirements for most efficient means.

Use the basic protocol logic or improve it if you want to truly find out answers.

[broli]

We need a simple experiment that can show a real gain in elevation by a small mass from the dropping of an equivalent small mass.

How about a balanced gizmo. To one end is a tethered mass. On release from vertical under the pull of G the ball heads earthwards pulling gizmo round with it, usual scenario, ball is flung. If ball reaches higher position than release, position of rotary gizmo is irrelevant ? It is balanced so why would it matter where it settles ? It is just a point against which the tether acts (or it acts on the tether) to alter ball (mass) trajectory/velocity and gain height.

I believe you should stick with . This way you don't need any scientific equipment (which you seem to lack) to confirm it. No discussion about unbalanced wheels and inaccurate calculations, if it gets higher you get a pat on the back if it doesn't then we can run after peq with our pitchforks and torches.

the only thing I would suggest is to add more weight to your bicycle wheel for more dramatic results. and use some hook so the weight can fly off.

[nicbordeaux]

I believe you should stick with . This way you don't need any scientific equipment (which you seem to lack) to confirm it. No discussion about unbalanced wheels and inaccurate calculations, if it gets higher you get a pat on the back if it doesn't then we can run after peq with our pitchforks and torches.

the only thing I would suggest is to add more weight to your bicycle wheel for more dramatic results. and use some hook so the weight can fly off.

Yup, no scientific measuring equipment here and not obsessed enough to invest :=)

I'm guessing that a peq is seeing a load of velocity in the flung mass because of the tether arrangement making for a forced change in flight path, which means a trade off of F for V. It's mechanics, not magic.

More when the first trials are done.

[ruggerodk]

a tandem might help ;-D....?

[nicbordeaux]

Sure would, two wheels, 4 chainrings, 4 pedals. Chaos pendulums x 4, 8 flung weights. 5 sprockets on the back. A pulley wheel and a jockey wheel on the rear derailleur. You could put so much junk on there nobody could ever say with any certitude it was OU or not.

Is a bow and arrow OU ? Is an air gun ? Is a scattergun ? Velocity is a form of force, or at least arises from force ?

[triplock]

I can safely say, without fear of reprisal, that a bow and arrow is not ou.

It's not round for a start !!!!!!!!! Tutt

[nicbordeaux]

Absolutely not OU, agreed. However, I have recurve 35 lb bows which shoot light carbon arrows, said arrows flying extremely fast, eg having a load of velocity. Also got a 55 (might be 60) lb longbow which shoots heavy wooden arrows at much slower speeds. The penetraion and impact characteristics of these different things are very unlike. And were I ever to have to harpoon a hippo, the slow but heavy impacting longbow would be choice. Less velocity by far, a load more force. The small modern bows unwind fast, the big old bow slow. So it's the launch speed which is dictating velocity, not the force.

Anyway, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBwrf5dtQfs (posted elsewhere) shows at end a bike wheel (flywheel) drive system that by means of adjusting mass, and number of links hooked over cog, gives a perfectly controllable and repeatable means of accelerating the stuff, and dumping the driver mass wherever required. Can't think of a better simple system.

And how about this: on the end of lever instead of affixing tether, you have a excentric rotating bike rim (just drilled through rim wall with a 5 mm bolt). Double pendulum effect (sort of), mass is tethered to this rim, not the main "wheel". Must be some massive velocity there. Time for bed...

[broli]

I don't know what that first part of your video is supposed to show. Your balanced beam has too little mass, your mass is already in front before momentum started to transfer.

Stick to a bicycle wheel so you wrap the tether around it. Attach two rods at opposing ends in the direction of the wheel shaft. This way you can add washers or common sense to make it heavier.

[Fletcher]

Do it your way nick - but in some part I agree with broli - it doesn't matter whether it's a balance beam or a circular flywheel like a bike wheel [I'm sure you know this already] - either way mass can be added at any radius to change the mass & moment of inertia if you want too - as he says, at least with the bike rim you had a ready made groove to wrap the tether around.

On that note, remembering back to your bouncy ball experiments, you had a tethered projectile weight & a drive weight sitting side by side - both these weights caused torque it the wheel & it turned to seek its position of least Pe.

You could modify that arrangement slightly by doing away with the drive mass & just having a flywheel & tethered projectile mass i.e. NO drive mass per se - because it starts off slightly imbalanced the projectile mass will act as both the accelerating body [giving the flywheel momentum] & the flung mass - then you would see if the velocity of the projectile mass was sufficient to launch it higher as well as give the flywheel momentum - I expect there would be a poor performance with not enough velocity to deploy properly.

If any variation of projectile mass results in the same relationships being exhibited then you can go to stage two - either, attach a drive mass to aid acceleration, velocity & momentum of the flywheel & projectile OR add your suggested dump mass drive system close to the axle as per you video - then you could determine how much drive mass was required to launch adequately & which was better i.e. rim riding drive mass or hanging dump mass drive.

After that you could play with the mass of the flywheel itself to see if that made any material difference to performance - clear relationships should be becoming evident.

You do know that an added drive mass will fling the tethered projectile higher than its starting height - what you don't know is whether the projectile mass is sufficient on its own to achieve the same result & what variable flywheel mass & inertia's do to the result with & without drive masses added ?

P.S. good on you for trying to put this theory to bed, one way or another - hopefully the supporters of the pequaide theory will chip in with some other helpful advice ?

[pequaide]

I was throwing some bags of BBs with the cart wheel. I threw a 48 (unofficial) gram bag that had a longer tether. The bag struck the ground before it threw and it still threw 27 meters. I am sure it would have set a new record if it had not scrapped the ground before it took off. The longer tether length would allow the small bag to be thrown strait up but not horizontally.

The smaller 48 gram bag appeared to be thrown about 60 feet straight up. The larger 73.8 gram bag would go up about 45 feet. The whirr of the smaller bag is louder. I am probably reaching the maximum performance on these small cloth bags.

The hay field starts at 40 meters, so there is another limit to a horizontal throw.

[Fletcher]

Can anyone find & post the link to the collapsing trebuchet [ex-you-tube I think] - it might be of interest to those here experimenting with & having fun tossing things - the upshot was that it was a small wooden table top variety built like a storks-bill [pantograph] - the thing collapsed under its own weight when tripped & in the process hurled a projectile up & outwards.

The important bit & relevance to this thread is that the storks-bill collapsed under its own weight & lowered its CoG - via pulleys etc a rope was pulled tight which flung a projectile high & wide - it would be interesting to see the difference in Pe's of the parts before & after or what happened to the system CoG before the projectile started coming down i.e. was there any net gain in Pe ?

IIRC, hurling the weight slowed the collapse as Cf's worked against the dropping CoG, but it didn't stop the collapse unlike pequaides tether & cylinder experiments - nevertheless an interesting comparison of potentialities.