Pequaide quote: Since the drive mass is what causes the speed in this experiment then there will be a point when the set thrown mass (144 grams) can no longer stop the increasing drive mass.
Nicbordeaux wrote: I see no reason at all that that should be the case. Your limitations may well be more of a timing/time required for deployment/breakinstrain/elasticity of tether nature.
The cylinder and spheres experiments clearly show that when the drive mass (spinning cylinder) becomes too massive the swinging out tethered mass can no longer stop the massive spinning cylinder.
By varying the mass of the spinning cylinder there were three conditions occurring when the weighted tether reached 90°. The three conditions were: the cylinder of a certain mass would be stopped, a smaller cylinder mass and the cylinder would be moving backwards, with a greater cylinder mass and the cylinder would still be moving forward when the weighted tether reached 90°.
If the tether length were infinite then the fixed tether mass could stop infinite cylinder mass, but the tether length is limited by the distance to the ground.
energy producing experiments
Moderator: scott
re: energy producing experiments
The link leads you to page 734 in Engineering and mining journal, Volume 98, Issues 14-26 where a history and specs on the flywheel can be read.Grimer wrote:Could you check the link please, Ralph.
I just get pictures of books.
Years ago the Saturday Post magazine publishers produced a volume of hard back books of the early pioneer days for Western USA. One volume was on the gold rush era and contained a picture of the mentioned flywheel. IIRC it was capable of lifting/pushing water from 3,600 feet deep.
Quite impressive for a single cylinder steam engine of the day!
Ralph
-
nicbordeaux
- Addict
- Posts: 2140
- Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2009 2:54 pm
- Location: France
Re: re: energy producing experiments
Agreed then, just pesky physical constraints. BTW, have you ever tried launching a bolas from a wheel ?pequaide wrote:Pequaide quote: Since the drive mass is what causes the speed in this experiment then there will be a point when the set thrown mass (144 grams) can no longer stop the increasing drive mass.
Nicbordeaux wrote: I see no reason at all that that should be the case. Your limitations may well be more of a timing/time required for deployment/breakinstrain/elasticity of tether nature.
If the tether length were infinite then the fixed tether mass could stop infinite cylinder mass, but the tether length is limited by the distance to the ground.
re: energy producing experiments
No: I have never thrown a bolas, as I would throw a tethered sphere or BB bag. I leave the tether on when I throw bags and spheres.
It would take some engineering but I am sure you could throw a bolas. But if your second sphere does not release properly the sphere that was released first would slam back into the wheel. This would probably cause damage or even injury if it glanced off and got you.
It would take some engineering but I am sure you could throw a bolas. But if your second sphere does not release properly the sphere that was released first would slam back into the wheel. This would probably cause damage or even injury if it glanced off and got you.
-
nicbordeaux
- Addict
- Posts: 2140
- Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2009 2:54 pm
- Location: France
re: energy producing experiments
Dear Nic,
Interesting and very simple - but why do you need the tethered mass?
When the driving mass falls a quarter (!) it ends up closer to the seesaw center pivot.
Consequently the seesaw goes down to the right all the way to 6-o'clock, lifting the driving mass and the small wheel way up to 12-o'clock....
Perhaps this big motion of the seesaw can be used to shoot the little driver mass back up on the small wheel..that is, 180° on the small wheel?
ruggero ;-)
Interesting and very simple - but why do you need the tethered mass?
When the driving mass falls a quarter (!) it ends up closer to the seesaw center pivot.
Consequently the seesaw goes down to the right all the way to 6-o'clock, lifting the driving mass and the small wheel way up to 12-o'clock....
Perhaps this big motion of the seesaw can be used to shoot the little driver mass back up on the small wheel..that is, 180° on the small wheel?
ruggero ;-)
Contradictions do not exist.
Whenever you think you are facing a contradiction, check your premises.
You will find that one of them is wrong. - Ayn Rand -
Whenever you think you are facing a contradiction, check your premises.
You will find that one of them is wrong. - Ayn Rand -
-
nicbordeaux
- Addict
- Posts: 2140
- Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2009 2:54 pm
- Location: France
re: energy producing experiments
Hi Ruggero,
Why you need a tethered mass ? Two reasons : in the scenario you describe, keel of right end, the tethered weight might (should) deploy and rise, and as the system was balanced at start, you would have a net gain in mass posiition/height. Except for the likely negative effect of the "stopped wheel" scenario described furter on. But who knows ? Maybe it will do as you say and the driver weight will rise. i doubt it a bit.
But mainly the aim is to see if there is "energy creation" , or anything else for that matter in the tethered mass fling . This thread is very interesting, I've read maybe 3% of the posts if that, but it epitomizes the "OU/PM" world and the haunted creatures (like me) who sometimes inhabit it :-) Also, I feel that some interesting stuff is going on in this "tethered mass / rotary launch / cf and cp realm. At least, that is what my horrible little experiments lead me to believe.
So, back to your thoughts. Correct, the balance shifts leading the fixed mass end to drop. This is why I proposed in the sketch a travel limit, to stop this particular end dropping. If you start letting it do as it will, you are introducing too many unquantifiable variables. You could also have the end we are discussing "held horizontal" at balance (zero tension) by a bungee wrapped around it, or two springs. You could have some water as ballast, a pendulum even. No end of possibilities, and I think some very interesting results, but hard to replicate/quantify/describe. This is a route I have travelled, and it's a real pain in the rearend when you can't get people to accept or understand what you are doing. Least of all when you can't figure out the abnormal results yourself.
So, the right "balast" end is stopped from moving under the horizon by some rocket science means like a piece of wood upon which it rests if overbalanced. There is no doubt whatsoever that the flung tethered mass, if not free to sail off into the ether, stop's the wheel mass and driver weight dead in it's tracks as it deploys and reaches end of "elliptical orbit" travel. There is even a minor degree of raising back up of the of the driver weight. Those who saw the vids I posted and helped me find the mistakes in the "trebuchet wheel" experiments will attest to this.
Now we have a device in which the seesaw beam can not sink. When the tethered mass deploys, it stops wheel and maybe continues to exert "extra" force on stopped wheel. This will register by trasfer to beam thru wheel axle as dip on the fixed mass right side of lever. Unfortunately, there is a wood block there preventing this. So indeed, we need either the block to be removed at the right moment (tons of room for controversy here, hey ?), or, and there are many options, a limited amount of travel against say a spring ?
Something like that anyway. Unfortunate that this small amount of travel will allow for other parameters such as seesaw "Milkovich" type antics, or leverage. But it keeps it to a minimum.
Two options then : think my drawing through and come up with another, better variation ; or, just do the usual PM inventor trick and rush headlong into letting the device do what it will, add bells and pendulums and Chistmas tree lights, and scream "OU" :-)
Hate to bring that poor guy Bessler into this, but he did say something about not putting the cart before the horses didn't he ? Which I take to mean "don't rush it", a step at a time, and understand every step you are taking before bringing everything together.
Ah, a last one : playing with borderline equal driver/tethered mass isn't necessary here. Give it 3 units of driver mass to 1 of tethered. Run the experiment against a backboard with vertical and horizontal marks in whatever unit you want. If at any point the sum of dropped mass vs raised mass shows a positive on the raised , start worrying.
As to rewind, yeah, I've been entertaing thoughts :-)
Why you need a tethered mass ? Two reasons : in the scenario you describe, keel of right end, the tethered weight might (should) deploy and rise, and as the system was balanced at start, you would have a net gain in mass posiition/height. Except for the likely negative effect of the "stopped wheel" scenario described furter on. But who knows ? Maybe it will do as you say and the driver weight will rise. i doubt it a bit.
But mainly the aim is to see if there is "energy creation" , or anything else for that matter in the tethered mass fling . This thread is very interesting, I've read maybe 3% of the posts if that, but it epitomizes the "OU/PM" world and the haunted creatures (like me) who sometimes inhabit it :-) Also, I feel that some interesting stuff is going on in this "tethered mass / rotary launch / cf and cp realm. At least, that is what my horrible little experiments lead me to believe.
So, back to your thoughts. Correct, the balance shifts leading the fixed mass end to drop. This is why I proposed in the sketch a travel limit, to stop this particular end dropping. If you start letting it do as it will, you are introducing too many unquantifiable variables. You could also have the end we are discussing "held horizontal" at balance (zero tension) by a bungee wrapped around it, or two springs. You could have some water as ballast, a pendulum even. No end of possibilities, and I think some very interesting results, but hard to replicate/quantify/describe. This is a route I have travelled, and it's a real pain in the rearend when you can't get people to accept or understand what you are doing. Least of all when you can't figure out the abnormal results yourself.
So, the right "balast" end is stopped from moving under the horizon by some rocket science means like a piece of wood upon which it rests if overbalanced. There is no doubt whatsoever that the flung tethered mass, if not free to sail off into the ether, stop's the wheel mass and driver weight dead in it's tracks as it deploys and reaches end of "elliptical orbit" travel. There is even a minor degree of raising back up of the of the driver weight. Those who saw the vids I posted and helped me find the mistakes in the "trebuchet wheel" experiments will attest to this.
Now we have a device in which the seesaw beam can not sink. When the tethered mass deploys, it stops wheel and maybe continues to exert "extra" force on stopped wheel. This will register by trasfer to beam thru wheel axle as dip on the fixed mass right side of lever. Unfortunately, there is a wood block there preventing this. So indeed, we need either the block to be removed at the right moment (tons of room for controversy here, hey ?), or, and there are many options, a limited amount of travel against say a spring ?
Something like that anyway. Unfortunate that this small amount of travel will allow for other parameters such as seesaw "Milkovich" type antics, or leverage. But it keeps it to a minimum.
Two options then : think my drawing through and come up with another, better variation ; or, just do the usual PM inventor trick and rush headlong into letting the device do what it will, add bells and pendulums and Chistmas tree lights, and scream "OU" :-)
Hate to bring that poor guy Bessler into this, but he did say something about not putting the cart before the horses didn't he ? Which I take to mean "don't rush it", a step at a time, and understand every step you are taking before bringing everything together.
Ah, a last one : playing with borderline equal driver/tethered mass isn't necessary here. Give it 3 units of driver mass to 1 of tethered. Run the experiment against a backboard with vertical and horizontal marks in whatever unit you want. If at any point the sum of dropped mass vs raised mass shows a positive on the raised , start worrying.
As to rewind, yeah, I've been entertaing thoughts :-)
re: energy producing experiments
I use releases that are simply looped tether strings looped over a pin. I assume they release when the tether is at about 90° to a line tangent to the wheel at the pin.
You are measuring energy by height, so the mass must be released while moving up. This would mean the tether release (as it comes off the pin) should be at about 9 o’clock in a clockwise spin.
You have drawn a tether length of about one half circumferences; I am going to guess that the wheel will rotate about another 90° after the mass is released from the circumference and before the tether string comes off the pin and is released from the wheel. That would mean that the drive mass should be at about 5 o’clock when the thrown mass is released from the circumference. The thrown mass would therefore be at 1 o’clock when it is released. So the initial direction of the thrown mass would be mostly horizontal and a little up. This would not be a problem if the wheel is spinning rapidly enough so that the thrown mass jumps away from the wheel.
It is worth a try: go for it.
I don’t know why you need the yellow counter weight on the right. I would just try to photograph or video tape the new high for the thrown mass.
I am driving the wheel from a smaller circumference than that which is used to throw. I do this because it has been proven experimentally that the momentum produced from the smaller drive wheel is the same as driving from the circumference. This can also give you higher speeds at the circumference if you arrange the masses appropriately.
You are measuring energy by height, so the mass must be released while moving up. This would mean the tether release (as it comes off the pin) should be at about 9 o’clock in a clockwise spin.
You have drawn a tether length of about one half circumferences; I am going to guess that the wheel will rotate about another 90° after the mass is released from the circumference and before the tether string comes off the pin and is released from the wheel. That would mean that the drive mass should be at about 5 o’clock when the thrown mass is released from the circumference. The thrown mass would therefore be at 1 o’clock when it is released. So the initial direction of the thrown mass would be mostly horizontal and a little up. This would not be a problem if the wheel is spinning rapidly enough so that the thrown mass jumps away from the wheel.
It is worth a try: go for it.
I don’t know why you need the yellow counter weight on the right. I would just try to photograph or video tape the new high for the thrown mass.
I am driving the wheel from a smaller circumference than that which is used to throw. I do this because it has been proven experimentally that the momentum produced from the smaller drive wheel is the same as driving from the circumference. This can also give you higher speeds at the circumference if you arrange the masses appropriately.
-
nicbordeaux
- Addict
- Posts: 2140
- Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2009 2:54 pm
- Location: France
re: energy producing experiments
Peq (quote) "I am driving the wheel from a smaller circumference than that which is used to throw. I do this because it has been proven experimentally that the momentum produced from the smaller drive wheel is the same as driving from the circumference. This can also give you higher speeds at the circumference if you arrange the masses appropriately."
I didn't find that peq, had less acceleration at start, though maybe end result is same. Don't think I got the idea across, hard in words. When I finaly get some time and organized, will do the experiment and vid it.
I didn't find that peq, had less acceleration at start, though maybe end result is same. Don't think I got the idea across, hard in words. When I finaly get some time and organized, will do the experiment and vid it.
Hi Nic - in seeking for the simplest proof of principle, I don't think we need both a see-saw and a rotary trebuchet. And I don't think we need to make things so big that it's too scary to attempt using a bolas to launch mass.
I'm thinking along the lines of an asymmetrical see-saw, with something like a 10:1 mass ratio - maybe 1kg descending and 100g ascending. The leverage ratio would be something like 100mm on the descending side and 1m on the ascending.
The physical material needed for the lever arms needs to be strong and light and balanced. So although this is basically a see-saw that won't rotate full circle, it might work out to use a light weight wheel anyway - perhaps cut from a thin sheet of aluminum. I'm wondering if Bessler used cords in tension, and perhaps the springy noise that people heard were taut cords - "the bow fires" perhaps ...
Anyhoo - the idea of a perfectly balanced lever/wheel with very asymmetrical geometry is at the heart of what i'm thinking of. If we accelerate this with a smaller driver mass (say 100g) falling a fixed distance on the 1kg side of the lever/wheel - we input a measurable Impulse of Force x Time into accelerating this wheel. This gives the wheel a specific amount of momentum.
The advantage of the asymmetrical geometry is that we can choose from wildly different peripheral velocity when we choose to extract all the momentum from the wheel. Although the wheel is balanced, and has a specific amount of momentum - the energy available for launching a vertical mass must be different depending on what peripheral point we hook up with ...
Obviously, if we choose to hook onto the larger diameter/higher velocity, the force is available for a lesser time. Or if we choose to hook onto the smaller diameter/slow velocity, the force is available for a longer time. So momentum is conserved.
But for our launching purposes, we want to launch a mass very quickly - so hooking onto the fasted moving point makes a lot of sense.
I'm thinking along the lines of an asymmetrical see-saw, with something like a 10:1 mass ratio - maybe 1kg descending and 100g ascending. The leverage ratio would be something like 100mm on the descending side and 1m on the ascending.
The physical material needed for the lever arms needs to be strong and light and balanced. So although this is basically a see-saw that won't rotate full circle, it might work out to use a light weight wheel anyway - perhaps cut from a thin sheet of aluminum. I'm wondering if Bessler used cords in tension, and perhaps the springy noise that people heard were taut cords - "the bow fires" perhaps ...
Anyhoo - the idea of a perfectly balanced lever/wheel with very asymmetrical geometry is at the heart of what i'm thinking of. If we accelerate this with a smaller driver mass (say 100g) falling a fixed distance on the 1kg side of the lever/wheel - we input a measurable Impulse of Force x Time into accelerating this wheel. This gives the wheel a specific amount of momentum.
The advantage of the asymmetrical geometry is that we can choose from wildly different peripheral velocity when we choose to extract all the momentum from the wheel. Although the wheel is balanced, and has a specific amount of momentum - the energy available for launching a vertical mass must be different depending on what peripheral point we hook up with ...
Obviously, if we choose to hook onto the larger diameter/higher velocity, the force is available for a lesser time. Or if we choose to hook onto the smaller diameter/slow velocity, the force is available for a longer time. So momentum is conserved.
But for our launching purposes, we want to launch a mass very quickly - so hooking onto the fasted moving point makes a lot of sense.
-
nicbordeaux
- Addict
- Posts: 2140
- Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2009 2:54 pm
- Location: France
re: energy producing experiments
Yes, agreed, that all makes sense, there many ways of going about this... And as the first step is to prove a gain of overall mass height, irrespective of how much, whatever is the simplest means might be best. And as many people as possible build different devices, the more chance there is of a success, if there is any to be achieved.
The question I can't figure out (in mind, I have to build to grasp) is whether any seesaw movement is going to be productive or counter-productive. If the latter, it is a simple matter of mechanically reversing the direction the force is applied to lever/seesaw by flung mass. OK, there will be some frictional loss.
As Ruggero suggested, there may be a lot to gain from the seesaw movement actually swinging the wheel round, as per a dumb experiment I did a vid of where rocking a fork with a wheel mounted in it got the 360°+ .
All the scenarios so far involve rotating launchers. There is another interesting line : a fixed wheel of whatever dia required (one assumes small) with a tethered mass wrapped around it. If it is on a seesaw, you avoid any "desaguilliers" effect, and the rotation comes from travel of the seesaw, and unwind of the tether. Short travel, hence the smaller wheel.
The question I can't figure out (in mind, I have to build to grasp) is whether any seesaw movement is going to be productive or counter-productive. If the latter, it is a simple matter of mechanically reversing the direction the force is applied to lever/seesaw by flung mass. OK, there will be some frictional loss.
As Ruggero suggested, there may be a lot to gain from the seesaw movement actually swinging the wheel round, as per a dumb experiment I did a vid of where rocking a fork with a wheel mounted in it got the 360°+ .
All the scenarios so far involve rotating launchers. There is another interesting line : a fixed wheel of whatever dia required (one assumes small) with a tethered mass wrapped around it. If it is on a seesaw, you avoid any "desaguilliers" effect, and the rotation comes from travel of the seesaw, and unwind of the tether. Short travel, hence the smaller wheel.
Even simpler, I would wonder about an asymmetrical balanced see saw - the short heavy end slowly descends while the longer lighter end flys up in the air. A tether attached to a small mass on the ground with enough slack in it so that it doesn't become taut until the fast end has reached maximum velocity. At which point it becomes a Bolas, and is yanked upwards.
I've also wondered whether we can use a Bolas and a pulley arrangement as lever for increasing velocity. During the time a cord is in tension, it behaves almost like a solid lever. If we introduced a pulley at a mid point in the cord, could it act like a fulcrum? I imagine we could use this like a lever, where a strong pull over a short distance can cause a mass to accelerate and travel a greater distance ... maybe, I'm not sure about the vector maths involved.
I'm sure the Bessler clues in Apologia Poetica are hinting at these tether snapping, bow twanging techniques ...
I've also wondered whether we can use a Bolas and a pulley arrangement as lever for increasing velocity. During the time a cord is in tension, it behaves almost like a solid lever. If we introduced a pulley at a mid point in the cord, could it act like a fulcrum? I imagine we could use this like a lever, where a strong pull over a short distance can cause a mass to accelerate and travel a greater distance ... maybe, I'm not sure about the vector maths involved.
I'm sure the Bessler clues in Apologia Poetica are hinting at these tether snapping, bow twanging techniques ...
-
nicbordeaux
- Addict
- Posts: 2140
- Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2009 2:54 pm
- Location: France
re: energy producing experiments
Greendoor (quote) "I'm sure the Bessler clues in Apologia Poetica are hinting at these tether snapping, bow twanging techniques ..."
Maybe so. What is looking pretty likey is that there is a velocity increase when a tethered weight is ejected or unwinds from a rotating object, or maybe just a cylidrical object with a small amount of arc of circle movement applied.
No need to say that if you increase the velocity of a weight, you increase the mass. That's the bottom line afaik. Whether it's OU or "UU" has to be shown one way or another. Or in several ways, actually.
The lever you need I have, easy to make. 25 mm per side box section alloy, 1 meter length. Can be slid relative to fulcurm/axle and maintained in pace by clamp to give equal or unequal distance either side. Procedure is to get the bar described, build a holder for the bar, fix holder to bike hub. Slide seesaw lever ablong in holder till desired setup, screw holder tight.
Maybe so. What is looking pretty likey is that there is a velocity increase when a tethered weight is ejected or unwinds from a rotating object, or maybe just a cylidrical object with a small amount of arc of circle movement applied.
No need to say that if you increase the velocity of a weight, you increase the mass. That's the bottom line afaik. Whether it's OU or "UU" has to be shown one way or another. Or in several ways, actually.
The lever you need I have, easy to make. 25 mm per side box section alloy, 1 meter length. Can be slid relative to fulcurm/axle and maintained in pace by clamp to give equal or unequal distance either side. Procedure is to get the bar described, build a holder for the bar, fix holder to bike hub. Slide seesaw lever ablong in holder till desired setup, screw holder tight.
re: energy producing experiments
Here are some pictures for the six foot tube experiment. The smaller masses on the end of the tube rotate just a easily as the larger masses at 3.5 inches.
- Attachments
-
-
re: energy producing experiments
I have a 16 inch diameter cart wheel that has a mass of 2670g. It can be stopped with a 185 gram missile that is on the end of a 24.5 inch tether which is wrapped around the wheel. The average mass of the hard plastic wheel is probably close to 7 inch from the point of rotation. So this is a rotational momentum of (2670 * 14 /16) + 185 = 2521.25g times the circumference velocity. Which means that the original mass in motion was 2521.25 / 185 = 13.6 times that of the missile while it was on the circumference. Which would means that if the Law of Conservation of Momentum is true then the missile will have to leave the wheel moving 13.6 times as fast as the original motion of the wheel.
The protective curtain placed 12 feet away receives a large amount of energy from the missile.
If Newton is correct: what is the energy change?
The protective curtain placed 12 feet away receives a large amount of energy from the missile.
If Newton is correct: what is the energy change?