Manipulating Momentum

[ovyyus]

If 1 lb dropped 1 ft can lift 1/4 lb back up to 16 ft (4:1 gain), then heat/sound losses would be irrelevant. Or Kirk is wrong.

[Kirk]

losses are losses but I think few have appreciation of what small energy is involved in sound.
A COP of 4 has lots of head room and the idea is simple and sound.

[nicbordeaux]

What is the test protocol on this one Bill ? A lever with a 4 x 1 ratio ? A wheel within a wheel ? No idea whether Kirk is right or wrong (well, prepared to accept that he may be right and hope so too)

Anybody to draw up a test ?

On a bike wheel tether weight set up with driver to flung at 4 to 1, who knows what the flung mass height is ?

Do you still have your bike wheel setup Bill ? It's an impulse more than a collision, but the distinction between the two is just a piffling matter of force over distance. Substitue for, or combine with distance: time (if required to suit personal susceptibility).

[ovyyus]

Nick, the test setup is already described...

[nicbordeaux]

Bill, after all the enthusiasm, it can not posibly be that none of the apostles have done the test. Who is sitting on the data ?

[murilo]

This intelligent draw shows a basic set for fall application and harvesting.

But it's a wheel and not a single 2 arms + axle lever.

In any similar application in turning wheels, STRAIGHT falls and straight vertical jumps will be naturally not possible.

Only curved trajectories will be possible, what means some 'conduction' and prior friction loses, but worst of all will be antagonist centrifuge forces over 'free' bodies fall!

To avoid all this, it will ask for really huge designs.

(Looking at the draw and mechanism, I guess that the IDEA is that heavier body will fall from 12h external perimeter, will shock at internal 3h and then will be conduced to external 6h, or some other position at outer circle.)


I guess that if you don't take care, this thread will last for years...
Best!
M.

[Kirk]

You make several assertions Murilo and I disagree with everything I think.
Pray tell what is the difference between a lever arm and a wheel except the wheel has superior rigidity?
Since the body is driven by essentially a hammer what are you talking about re "centifuge forces"? The ball is smacked and flies -where do you get the idea it travels with the wheel.

The design is foolishly simple. A wheel and 2 hammers. One is driven and the other drives. So what huge designs project do you want to complicate this with?
Perhaps you should wait until I post a video. I suppose a picture is worth a thousand words

[nicbordeaux]

Murilo is correct to the extent that unless the transfer between dropped and launched is instantaneous, as in "Beam me up, Scotty", the launched mass will follow a curved trajectory, curvature depending on amount of travel between initiation of movement and cessation of contact with wheel. With a small wheel, not an issue ?

A video would certainly be a massive plus. And save a lot of time. And hot air leading to global warming.

And yes, this thread will continue until the end of time, at least (6 days from now I believe the poles are supposed to shift ?). Peq's momentum/energy creation thread has been going several years, and could be brought back to life at any time by showing some video footage :)

[Kirk]

the launched ball follows a trajectory established by momentum and the force of gravity. If the angle of departure is zero then the path is straight up and down. It would be difficult to capture it though so you give it a small deviation toward the capturing device by impacting a bit more between 2 and 3 oclock.three oclock launches straight up if rotating CCW.
Angle of incidence =angle of reflection.

[murilo]

Kirk and Nic,
I just try to help a little.
You'll agree that the informs I got are too few (where are those hammers?)
Main stuff I have in mind is that all dynamics inside a wheel, that is turning, will tend to be curved and with 'centrifuge resistance' in mechanisms action.
If you simulate with a pair of levers, weights and fulcrum it may work as wished, but will show a not real behavior for a wheel.
Cheers!
M.

[Kirk]

the wheel is solid
the two dots are the hammers

[ovyyus]

You'll agree that the informs I got are too few (where are those hammers?)

Murilo,

Step 1: 1lb weight drops 1 ft and impacts flywheel (red dot input hammer)
Step 2: Flywheel is now rotating (1lb weight is no longer attached)
Step 3: 1/4lb weight introduced at flywheel rim
Step 4: Flywheel impacts 1/4lb weight at rim (red dot output hammer)
Step 5: 1/4lb weight is thrown 16ft high

Assuming no flywheel bearing and windage loss then no special input/output timing required. Assuming complete momentum transfer is another matter.

[Gwheel]

And around and around it goes... sometimes.

Hello. This is my first post, so to be polite, an introduction is appropriate. I live in the northeast United States, married 31 years, have one grown daughter, am retired, designed and contracted my own house and lived off the grid for a couple of years in the mid 80's, limited formal institutional education, a year and a half of non-science at community college, joined this forum June, 2009 but have only spent a few hours browsing and reading here. Whew. Most people exit my presence rather quickly, and it doesn't bother me. My wife says I argue too much, interrupt incessantly, and don't have enough tact, too honest I guess. If I believe you are spouting garbage, I'm going to tell you... hard. Well, I do have a couple of very good friends... who must understand me, heh, heh. I'm sure my wife is correct, wives generally are you know.


A few days ago I came back to the forum motivated to learn a bit more. After reading a while, I roughed in a single 24 lb. unusual shaped pendulum fixed to a 300 lb. mass wheel in WM2D, set the pendulum pivot at about 1:15 clock position, oriented the pendulum weight up, nearly vertical to allow a CW drop, and clicked run. Wow, all chaotic hell broke loose. Of course there was no control, and I'm pretty sure this setup included some elements of both classical mechanics and chaotic dynamics. The wheel oscillated some while the pendulum moved energetically enough to near tear itself off the wheel if it had been an actual wheel. Air resistance was at the default, "None". After the pendulum spun a few 360's it settled down some and the wheel rotated 12 turns clockwise (all rotations about 5 to 6 seconds or 10-12 RPM), after which chaos took over again, the wheel commenced oscillating for a period of time, then reversed direction and turned CCW. It rotated 124 consecutive times, then oscillated some, made 2 clockwise turns, reversed and started counter clockwise again. At more than 11 minutes into the run, WM2D locked up with this message:

WM could not complete your request because an internal limit has been reached.

I have been learning while observing the pendulum/wheel system.

- A critical timing relationship is required between the oscillation or rotation position of the pendulum and momentum transfer to the wheel (to produce rotation). I wonder if I could ever learn to control it.

- A significant momentum transfer is taking place, alternately reversing, between the pendulum and the wheel. The multiple reversals occurring due to the pendulum swinging freely, uncontrolled.

- As I continued experimenting, changing and tweaking the system, I confirmed the ratio of moving mass to wheel mass is critical, at least in a single pendulum system positioned and shaped as mine. (Probably true for all free pendulums, I have yet to confirm with greatly different shapes)


I will continue tweaking the single pendulum system, trying different wheel masses, etc. in an attempt to learn more. With guesswork weight tweaking and air resistance turned on, I have seen 52 consecutive revolutions. When rotating, these sims are not particularly efficient, taking on average about 6 seconds per revolution. In addition, some rotations, barely make it past the 12 o'clock position of the pendulum pivot. Well, after all, a free pendulum on a free wheel is only chaotic and random. The sims currently continue to produce the lockup and "internal limit" message after running for 6-10 minutes.

I thank you all for the wealth of information and interesting reading which has been posted here on this forum. I'm hoping some of you folks will comment on the following questions.

- 1. Is there any way with this type of setup to differentiate between initial falling pendulum PE (causing all the motion) or additional PE gained?
- 2. Is there valuable information concerning pendulums here on the forum which I might read for further understanding?
- 3. Is there an explanation for the WM2D lockup and "internal limit" message?
- 4. Is WM2D accurate enough to take seriously?
- 5. I imagine this has all been done before, so for valid experimentation, how would you recommend I proceed?


Regards,
Chris

[AB Hammer]

Welcome to the forum Chris

WM2D has its problems and can not be fully trusted but it is good for quick ideas.

I have to get back to work.

Alan

[Grimer]

So far I have only dipped in and out of this thread.

I've now read the lot and satisfied myself by going back to the equations of motion that 1 lb dropped 1 foot will indeed raise 1/4 lbs 16 feet.

For me, the most significant remark Kirk made was the following:

...
The maths omit rate and we know 1 horsepower, 550 footpounds per second is vastly different if 1 pound lifted 550 feet in 1 second rather than 550 pounds lifted 1 foot in one second. ...

Yes, indeed.

Difference in rate is at the heart of the classic Carnot cycle.

Difference in rate is at the heart of harnessing impact/recoil.

Thanks to the Jerk
of Kirk's observation above I can now see how to demonstrate that the isothermal leg of the Carnot is functionally equivalent to the slow loading of a beam described in the Power Output thread

http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewt ... 4510#84510

and the adiabatic leg of the Carnot is functionally equivalent to sudden (impact) loading of a beam.

I shall now go away and prepare diagrams to explain this functional equivalence more fully.