Gravity motor motto...

[iacob alex]

.....or "catchword",or "slogan" can be an ubiquitous simple fact...being noticed anytime:if a windmill gets its power from slowing down the wind flow,a possible gravity motor,alike,can get his power from slowing down the gravity free fall...

All the best! / Alex

[murilo]

YESSSSSSSS!!!!
This looks to be obvious, at least to me.
Cheers!
Muliro

[Fletcher]

Not at all - if you follow that logic it becomes apparent that a windmill slows down the air speed, easily explained by Newtonian Physics.

The air mass has a velocity & the molecules have mass - when they impact the turbine blades they transfer some of their momentum to the blades causing them to turn & develop power to do work - gyrocopters are another example.

The Newtonian Action : Reaction doctrine says that the molecules of air will have less velocity after transferring some of their momentum, but total momentum is conserved !

This is not at all like gravity interacting with masses - for a start there is no medium of transmission - and there is no momentum transfer.

So they are not even remotely similar - at best philosophical but factually incorrect rhetoric, IMO.

[iacob alex]

Hi !

An Atwood machine ,as a matter of fact,is a typical "slow down " exemplar...

This isn't ,in my opinion ,"remotely similar" to a gravity motor.

If we replace ,in some way (mass difference with arm difference), a pulley with a lever ,we have the torque difference on the same side of the fulcrum...

Remains a single problem:"the self".

Then,where is the "factual"( as a fact of reality) "rhetoric" (exaggerated language ) in there motto?

By the way,the intention of this topic was a collection of short sayings ,nothing more...

All the best! / Alex

[Fletcher]

The acceleration of the masses due gravity in an Atwood's is the same for all body's.

The inertia of the masses slows the velocity of the descending mass.

Chinese fortune cookies also have a collection of short saying - I don't take them seriously either.

[iacob alex]

Hi !

To be too serious,sometimes is equivalent to be "sedate"...with no chance for the "fortune cookie" of this forum...take this as an extra card in a word-poker game.

Acceleration "g" is uniform between certain limits.

An Atwood machine works with a=g*(m1-m2)/(m1+m2) ,so it's a free falling "decreasing" apparatus for gravity acceleration,nothing more.

With topic "Atwood machine with a heavy pulley" ,the main actor becomes velocity and energy storage...it's a different "perspective".

Atwood plays a small mass difference (or torque...or "input" ).

This small "thing",due to the time factor,is ever increasing...this is the free fall "pattern".

If we store this "avalanche momentum" ( somebody had the inspiration of a heavy pulley...see the site),as an "output" we have a playing mechanical "battery".

The last,but not the least,if we replace the pulley image,with a lever one... can it be, an opportunity to approach the "toy" ?!

All the best! / Alex

[Fletcher]

It's not about be serious or not - nor word games or cliches - I try to deal in facts !

It's about finding a real way forward to solving the question of how did Bessler achieve his results ?

If we put aside the notion that he faked it or that he was completely disingenuous then we are left with two options.

1. he discovered some hitherto unknown artifact of physics or new branch of physics & math that the rest of the world since has failed to see.

2. he used some facet of known physics & math in a way never before nor since imagined.

If we store this "avalanche momentum" (somebody had the inspiration of a heavy pulley...see the site), as an "output" we have a playing mechanical "battery".

The last, but not the least, if we replace the pulley image, with a lever one... can it be, an opportunity to approach the "toy" ?!

And here lies the crux of the problem - what you are proposing & others well known to this discussion site have also proposed is that this concept of a 'mechanical battery' makes sense - Energy physics says that complete transference of momentum does not & can not happen - this is proven thru countless experiments - NO ONE has shown an instance [other than when two masses colliding are the same] can a near complete transference of momentum occur.

The best that can occur is a partial transference & if the initiating mass is larger it moves on after collision with residual velocity & momentum - Energy physics are consistent with this finding.

Show just ONE empirical experiment that shows that a 'mechanical battery' is a realistic objective, able to be proved by experimental repetition & then Energy physics can be thrown out & replaced with Momentum/Energy physics or a more appropriate currency.

Atwood's is no more a mechanical battery than any lever system with outlying masses attached - the more massive & further from the fulcrum the more inertia robs the system of acceleration [aka final velocity & Ke] - this is found by I = m.r^2 in rotating systems & is well known - it is the exact same thing that Atwood's demonstrates.

So neither an Atwood's nor an unbalanced lever are 'mechanical batteries' in any sense of the imagination !

[iacob alex]

Hi !

The problem of an "Atwood machine with A HEAVY PULLEY " is something new in the domain of the lab-demos(simulations).

On net,you can find an interesting site (see this topic on forum),where with (for instance...) m1=2 ,m2=1 ,you can move a huge pulley (M=10.000 or more...),in the same "manner" as a free falling mass:let's say that the vertical fall is "transacted" as a rotational fall:gravity fall becomes inertial fall.
Nothing new:the centered mass/flywheel/pulley/heavy hub pendulum/heavy hub lever... acts as a short -time mechanical "battery".

All the best! / Alex

[Fletcher]

Absolute rubbish !

The heavy pulley has both Rotational & Translational Kinetic Energy [ Rot Ke + Trans Ke = TOTAL Ke ].

The amounts of each dependent on where the mass is distributed.

A force must be applied to the pulley to get it moving - this is provided by g accelerating the mass differential downwards [i.e. F = m.a]

Because of inertia of the pulley [due to mass distribution] the accelerating mass gains velocity quickly or slowly.

The heavy pulley gains momentum.

The acid test is ...

Now get the rotating heavy pulley with momentum to do WORK.

Work Done [in the mechanical sense] = F . D [force x distance]

Ke is measured in Joules, so is Work Done - therefore they are interchangeable as the indicative capacity to do mechanical work.

Get your pulley with loads of momentum [but small velocity] to do some real work - perhaps, for starters, just enough to lift the drive mass back to starting height & restore Pe ?

If what you say about an Atwood's were true then we could do away with Potential Energy of Position [Pe] & use the Atwood's to show that Pe could be increased - that in turn would prove that Pe & Ke are not interchangeable for a mass in a gravity field - in fact you'd have proved that gravity isn't a continuous acceleration, nor conservative, nor a field at all.

Go to it !

[murilo]

Possibly my internetenglish is failing, but a gravity power example is easy to find.
One have just to think about hydraulic generators and water falls.
(Not sure if I lost something, but this is what I try to mean.)
Best!
M.

[Fletcher]

Alex .. if you can get your Atwood's to do better than restore Pe i.e. TOTAL system Pe of position is higher than it started with ... THEN ... you have conclusively proved your 'mechanical battery' analogy & validity !

BECAUSE ... batteries store Energy & not Momentum last time I looked !


EDIT: before someone points out the obvious.

An Atwood's is a flywheel - flywheels are mechanical batteries able to smooth out Energy delivery - they store Energy [but have Momentum] & give it back when needed - they never give back MORE Energy than they were given to get them up to & maintaining RPM.

[iacob alex]

Hi!

Firstly,it's easy to notice...we have no more proposals about a short description ("motto"),of a possible gravity motor.

Why? This isn't an interesting topic?

Maybe,a short visit of subject "m*g*h interdiction..." can arouse some interest in...

When we play a single mass between two gravitational levels (potential difference),this interdiction is obvious.

When we play two masses,between same limits,in a "certain" manner,maybe we can think distinctly...

By the way,an Atwood machine isn't a flywheel,but a comparative device,something alike of a balance (weighting machine).

An Atwood machine with a heavy pulley,has as a "thing added" ,the rotational energy storage system (heavy pulley).

All the best! / Alex

[Fletcher]

I'll play along for a bit longer Alex - perhaps you'll understand this - I've included Pe = mgh into the Atwood's analysis just for you.

N.B. Grimer might take note also.

See attachment below.

Here we have three setups, there is no pulley/flywheel as yet, just frictionless pulleys.


The one on the left has two platforms of 1 kg each [left & right sides] & a drive mass of 1 kg attached to the right platform.

The middle one has two platforms of 0.1 kg each [left & right sides] & a drive mass of 1 kg attached to the right platform.

The one on the right has two platforms of 1 kg each [left & right sides] & a drive mass of 10 kg attached to the right platform.



I have not bothered to show the change in Pe of the platforms because they move equal distances vertically therefore cancel each other out in terms of Net Pe.

I've shown the Pe loss of the drive mass in each case.


This can be compared to the summed Ke of all the masses - you will see that they are the same - this means that Energy is conserved in an Atwood's.


The left & right setups have the same platform mass - the middle one has 10% of the platform mass but the same drive mass as the left setup.

Follow thru the figures in the pics & run the sim if you are able.


The important bit is that when platforms are involved the drive mass can't fall at freefall velocity - a viscosity is introduced, this is inertia - the purpose of the inertia/viscosity is to allow the Energy sums to balance - so, time for drive mass to fall 1 meter takes longer & final velocity of the drive mass is less than freefall comparison.

If the differential between platforms mass & drive mass is greater then the final velocity is higher, the time to fall less.

What does this mean ?

It means that the only Energy the system can have is that given by 'g' - so, the TOTAL Energy the system can acquire is the same as the lost Pe of the drive mass - if the ratio of drive mass is high then time to fall is quicker than a low ratio - that is because all objects must have Ke - so, the Ke's of the platforms is taken away leaving the Ke of the drive mass at any given height & all three sum to the Pe lost.

N.B. note that the setups middle & right fall at the same rate & have the same velocity - this is because the ratio's are the same.

If you wanted to show an Energy gain over Pe lost you'd need to have the drive mass arrive with higher velocity i.e. more quickly - this is not the case & in all instances the sums balance out.

Slowing them down does not help as I'll show in the next post with the use of flywheels/pulleys.

[Fletcher]

Here is the same setups again - this time I've added pulleys or flywheel as I prefer.

Note that each pulley is 10 kg's.

Note that the time to fall 1 meter for the drive mass has increased a lot.

Note that the middle & right setups now do NOT arrive at the same velocity in the same time.

This can be figured by working out the Pe loss of the drive masses - then TOTALING the Ke's of each body in the system, including the Rotational Ke of the flywheel, *cough* I mean pulley.

Now you can see that Energy is still conserved & this is balanced by added or lesser viscosity/inertia depending on ratio's, just as before.

What does this mean ?

There is NO gain in Ke over Pe lost.

Increasing TIME by adding a pulley has not helped.

Conservation of Energy seems intact UNLESS the drive mass arrives quicker than predicted & the sum of all parts has a greater Ke than Pe lost by the drive mass - this is because Ke [in Joules] is the same units as mechanical Work Done [in Joules].

If the system Ke gained were greater than the Pe lost then that would show up as the capacity to do more WORK than the loss of Pe experienced - that would be experimentally measurable & quantifiable.

[Fletcher]

And in case the Energy math wasn't convincing enough here is some information about inertia & why it slows down the rate of fall of the drive mass [or pulley if there is one in the system].

In the sim shots below I have built two devices.

1. The first on the Left is an Atwood's where all 3 displaced masses are 1 kg - 1 goes up, 2 go down equal distances i.e. 2 platforms + 1 drive mass

2. The second on the right uses the same 1 kg drive mass pulling horizontally the same displaced masses of 2 kg's.

Note in the end shot that both drive masses fell the same distance in the same time [N.B. this was far greater than free fall time] therefore had the same acceleration & end velocity.

The effect of inertia on rate of fall [i.e. time taken] is easiest understood by looking at the 'horizontal pull' comparison then thinking about the similarities to the Atwood's.

'g' = acceleration due to gravity.

F = m . a => a = F / m

a = 9.80665 N's / 3 kgs

Therefore the actual acceleration of the drive mass is 1/3rd the acceleration due to gravity in free fall since gravity's acceleration of the drive mass is shared between 3 masses & 3 kg's being displaced.

This is explained by the fact that mass must have inertia [resistance to a change of state of motion] whether in a gravity field or not, since pulling a mass with no change in height in a gravity field still causes the drive mass to slow its descent - the same is found for the Atwood's device - it is simply the fact that if an objects state of motion must change this has a lag effect or viscosity like quality on the system as I earlier described it.

Relate that to the Energy math & it can be seen that the drive mass cannot gain extra velocity & Ke of the entire system in relation to Pe lost unless you can wave a wand & change inertia at will.