Pendulum raising com, any precedents ?

[nicbordeaux]

The "Milkovich 2SO" type sesaws have been around for an awful long time, well before the S2O denomination too, meaning well before people started calling seesaws with a pendulum on one end and a deadweight or anything else on the opposite end (wherever the pivot point is) "S2O's". Various other pendulum upset/driven devices too.

Is there any documented precedent of one of these devices being started by lifting the bob though "x" degrees of an arc equating to a meaurable force , and ending it's oscillating, bobbing or swinging in it's natural keel position (that from which it started before the lift and release of the pendulum bob) whilst having lifted a weight by any means to a height such that overall elevation of com has been attained ?

This question has two points, the one of lesser interest being "if these "OU" claims for oscillators or else are real, it would take a completely blindfolded no-brainer to fail to achieve this raise in com."

[Fletcher]

You can calculate whether this is OU or not quite simply.

Use the physics definition of Work Done = F x D

How much Work was done to lift the pendulum [vertical distance] - this is a gain in Pe = mgh in Joules of Energy

Now measure how much Work is done by the second stage in lifting a mass or itself - this is a raising of Pe in Joules of Energy.

If the WD Output is greater than WD Input you have theoretically achieved OU ! - get the Output to drive the Input & you have empirically shown OU by closing the loop !

N.B. this assumes that the CoM has not fallen in the process to lower than it started at like a weight driven pendulum clock.

I am surprised the discussions have raged on for years.

[Gwheel]

Is there any documented precedent of one of these devices being started by lifting the bob though "x" degrees of an arc equating to a meaurable force , and ending it's oscillating, bobbing or swinging in it's natural keel position (that from which it started before the lift and release of the pendulum bob) whilst having lifted a weight by any means to a height such that overall elevation of com has been attained ?

Documented? Probably not. Has it been observed? It may have been. It is not particularly difficult to arrange a weighted pendulum such that when the weight (bob) is raised and then dropped, the weight (and CG/CM of the system) then later rises above the initial CG/CM position. To complete the overall elevation gain, all that would be necessary would be to release some of the weight at that higher elevation and catch it (a cup like container, a shelf, etc.). Now, if you can control, time, and repeat this action on a wheel, you will have an operating wheel, you will have essentially duplicated Bessler's wheel.

Regards,
Chris

[nicbordeaux]

Exactly, how can this debate have gone on for years when it's so simple to prove or disprove by just driving a weight lift mech of some sort ? Not so sure about just the vertical elevation of pendulum start position, maybe the radial set of pendulum needs to be taken into account ? However, as a proud ignoramus, I'll let somebody else work that one out ;)

Chris : an elevation of the com doesn't mean a reset. That could well require some very complex engineering. And may even be impossible given the frictional or other losses that returning the kick to swing the pendulum entail.

[nicbordeaux]

Sorry, post withdrawn.

[Gwheel]

Nick,

I have read some of your posts. I am impressed with your understanding. That said, I am mistaken in the manner in which I interpreted and answered your question. I do not know if you mean a freely rotating system or a system constrained. Therefore, another attempt. I am still learning, so please forgive me if I have this wrong.

In any at rest freely rotating system (seesaw, lever, wheel) with a weighted pendulum attached, the CM will be at a particular point. After raising and releasing the weight (bob) attached to the pendulum, the CM will return to that same point when the system returns to an at rest condition, no change, no elevation of center of mass. To imagine otherwise... a violation of natural laws.

In any out of balance freely rotating system with its starting position rotated from its keel position, a force has been applied and the system has potential energy. If a weighted pendulum is attached on the side of the system having potential energy and the pendulum weight (bob) is raised and released simultaneously with the release of the complete system, then some system configurations, during rotation, will show a momentary (momentary or temporary) rise in CM. However, when the system returns to an at rest state, the CM on all such out of balance systems will be lower than than when the system was released.

You wrote, "an elevation of the com doesn't mean a reset. That could well require some very complex engineering."

Hmm... I wish I understood what you mean. As I understand, an elevation of center of mass requires a movement of at least some portion of that that mass to a higher point within the system. If the CM of a freely rotating system remains elevated above the axis (I know you didn't refer to axis) when the rotation is stopped, then when the system is released it will begin to rotate.

You may be correct concerning "complex engineering"... I continue to dream that the solution is just very counter intuitive.

Good luck !

Regards,
Chris

[nicbordeaux]

OK Chris, "Nooten's 2 nd law" can apparantly be construed to mean that from force obtained from gravity -in our case a released pendulum will do-, an elevation of a identical or larger mass to a height greater than that lost by the mass from which the force derived is strictly forbidden. Preload would be acceptable but would have to be taken into account in the simple math required to work out sum loss or gain. If you say it's possible to raise the center of mass, that is gain height, you just threatened to bust the law and you get done in by the physics sheriffs.

As I'm not going to have enough lives to work on everything, let's have a quick look at the oblong washing up bowl which rests on a chassis which is centrally pivotted, and has travel restraints each end to stop it from tilting too far. At start position, let's assume that as you face the tank side on, it is resting with the left end grounded. The water will be much deeper one end, what with water, like a later day Mike Tyson, always ending up lying flat. Or resting horizontal. Irrespective of the angle of the container.

When you tilt the tank, a certain amount of force is required. And a certain amount of force is generated. When the water slides down to the end of the bowl (right end) and comes to rest, it again finds perfect horizontal, and has just been displaced laterally. The distribution of the water, hence height of mass is identical. (Assuming of course that the ground is flat.). Just out of interest, the CG has shifted, but not the mean height of the mass. A case of lateral travel.

After several weeks of absent mindedly tilting the bowl with your foot from time to time as you pass it, then making a small (read "light") as possible pendulum type setup which will induce the tilt, you begin to wonder "Why the heck are my socks wet ? Who peed in the bowl ? Did it rain during the night thus increasing the amount of water ? "

Just like Newton with the apple. And the answer is simple : on charging down the tank, the water, on hitting the end towards it has travelled, rises to a level which is higher than the the level from which it departed. How much of the water I can't tell you precisely, so there is no claim of overall rise of mass on this overslop at this stage.

However, if you have a half pipe (or gutter) mounted across the tank against the said end at a level above that which is the "rest" level, and if that "gutter" (closed off both ends) is shallow enough that when the waters recede the amount of water that has sloshed into it and is trapped within it is higher than what would have been the normal rest position of the water, you have gained height of mass. Of course, the rest level will be diminished by the amount of water caught in the gutter, so no hasty conclusions :) Nevertheless, , and I've tried this, you can by this means, gain height of mass from gravity. That it may not be sufficient to reset the system is a matter of no import at this stage. Other systems (baffles, pushrod linkages, flaots, etc) will offer significant improvement.

Anybody who has read this far and understood may replicate this one. If in disagreement, I'd love to hear the explanation.

We can safely postulate that had Newton been obsessed with water-filled plastic washing up bowls rather than apples (and had he worn socks), physics books would not read what they do today.

One may further imagine that there is a remote possibility that what Herr Bessler, if he is to be given any credence, referred to as "oft observed in nature" in relation to his claimed PM device's principle, may well have been this "slop height", and/or other wave behavior patterns, such as surge.

I also take note that Fletcher, with whom I have a 10 euro bet that elevation of CoM is posible has changed the conditions to "Show me perpetual motion" ;)

ps : this is the gist of the post above which I withdrew. On second thoughts, who cares, even if it leads to PM by somebody other than yours truly, it's no big deal.

[Fletcher]

Nick .. a gain in vertical CoM will do !

The conditions being that ALL Energy input is accounted for.

If I understand you correctly you are proposing an inverted pendulum i.e. a water filled regular container balanced on a pivot forming a see-saw - it has a CoM that can be determined.

If it sits exactly horizontal with the CoM directly above the Center of Rotation [CoR] then like a pencil balancing on its point it will be stable.

If you then input energy so that the CoM is no longer vertically above the CoR then there will be a torque about the CoR - the see-saw will rotate or IOW's is unstable & its instability will further increase i.e. its an inherently unstable arrangement.

To be unstable & have torque about the CoR, the CoM must LOWER in relation to its vertical starting height, so I guess I disagree with your theory & findings.

[Gwheel]

Yes, Newton was certainly correct for the time when he proposed the 2nd law and for the most part humanity agrees. Frankly, I am a believer, all Newton's Laws are correct as stated and inviolate. Nevertheless, it is possible to achieve a higher CM in a system. What is sometimes forgotten, and we have probably all been guilty of that mental lapse on occasion, is that system is NOT a closed (isolated) system. The machine which produces the rise, was initially given the energy from outside the system (raising of a stone, raising of a pendulum, rotation from keel position of a wheel, etc.).

Example 1: Start with a balanced wheel, attach a pendulum pivoted near the wheel mid radius at the wheel 1:30 clock position (pendulum addition makes wheel out of balance). Raise the pendulum nearly vertical, ensure it is not completely vertical (12 clock) and release the system. Observe the pendulum as it completes a few multiple complete rotations, and depending on the configuration, the wheel, which is now out of balance, will also rotate temporarily. This is bidirectional momentum exchange between the wheel and pendulum and the system CM will at times be temporarily higher than the system CM position prior to system release.

Example 2: Bessler's bidirectional wheel was initially "given a gentle push" to start the continuous rotation. Well heck... that gentle push moved a weight within its mechanism into position to be acted upon by gravity. Gentle push to start = not a closed system. On his uni-directional wheels, a spring(s) was, gently, continuously, preloaded which explains the self start. But, the spring(s) had to have been preloaded by Bessler initially = not a closed system. Hmm... the law of Conservation of Energy = closed system.

All wheel designers should consider this in their designs and be aware that you can't have an operating wheel without an initial (small) force applied. Ok, I said it, that probably blows it for me. Someone will have an operating wheel patented within the month.

Mankind has written many laws. Societies change, our collective knowledge increases, and laws, valid at the time of their proposal have been changed throughout history. We who believe Bessler designed and built an operating wheel must also believe in 'shades of gray' in current physics beliefs. Some areas may soon change, and written material in the future may need to be more specific and definitive.

You might be interested to know, if you are working to design a self-running wheel, there is a clock ticking down on the time remaining for you to succeed. When the "Singularity" occurs in 2045, it will be accomplished. Yes, I will have to admit, I am a singularitarian.

Originally published in TIME magazine, here's a reprint:

http://wwsg.com/kurzweil-the-singularit ... s-immortal

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nick,

The oblong washing up bowl, I like it, but don't put any fish in, when they jump they'll be changing the center of mass. Seriously, I'm really thankful you explained your idea further. A slow person like me can understand this. I'm thinking you may have something here. To elaborate on your half pipe (or gutter) concept, you probably can't prove this with any physics maths. Thankfully... I can't do them, those maths thingies. Well, actually I'm too lazy. Anyhew, physics defines slop, splash, etc. as chaotic and has no great laws or equations for those types of wet socks. However, you may have fun and be challenged by further experimentation to determine how much slop to a higher elevation you need. The key may be a calibrated gutter hole to release the necessary mass of water, at the correct time, back into the system. So, your three simple machines here, your lever (seesaw), your 1st inclined plane, and your 2nd inclined plane (bowl sidewall producing the lift) sounds like a system that should give you a reason to get your socks... ahh... wet for.

Good Luck !

Regards,
Chris

[DrWhat]

Chris you might be right about the singularity, but I am sure we will be so desperate for resources (food etc) here on earth by 2045 that creating artificial intelligence will have the sole purpose of finding a solution to our problem: the survival of the human race.



Intelligent life will not be found on other planets (for example) because all civilizations self destruct eventually due to limited resources and/or war. Look at the Aztecs, the Romans, the Egyptians...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kh_YCSW5lPc

If we CAN create that artificial intelligence, well let them be stuck in traffic for hours to get to work! Let them see what its like! Better them than me.[/url]

[nicbordeaux]

To be unstable & have torque about the CoR, the CoM must LOWER in relation to its vertical starting height, so I guess I disagree with your theory & findings.

Your understanding is absolutely dot on Fletcher, that's exactly what I'm proposing. Except for the fact that the system is so unstable that balance with GG directly over the pivot point is impossible in realworld terms. Therefore, the system starts from one keel point and moves to the opposite keel point. The water slops higher (fact) before settling. A fraction of that water can be captured at the highest reached point (fact). And the energy can be accounted for in simple terms: force required to inititiate tilt vs. force potential equivalent of water captured at higher than release point. This on a perfectly flat ground or platform for the seesaw bowl to pivot/rest on (other systems than the .

If linear travel and friction or else associated with it does not have to be worked into the equation, it'd be nice because the last thing I need is a load of argument with physicists and other pests. So really working to maximize this principle rather than other designs/concepts depends on the Jury agreeing with this manner of accounting. And also accepting that of the three types of pendulum A, B, C any one of the three may be used.

[nicbordeaux]

Whilst we're at it, might as well submit this sketch to the sagacity of the court. Note please that there is preload at start (shown) but that when system returns to start position, that preload will be restored. Minus, unfortunately, any mass removed. Unless the water captured at elevation is allowed to return to left (start end) on a "gutter on rail" system. Or just leaked through a pipe at apropriate rate/time. If the pipe allowing the lateral transfer of the captured water at point "raised com"at right end is dead horizontal to tank and closed off at left end, pivot of the tank back to start left would mean full restoration of load on spring, whilst conserving gain in com. That's keeping it simple.

Please note that we are dealing here not in semantics, but underway experiments. Irrespective of whether the final system works or not.

[nicbordeaux]

The project has been left lying abandonned in the garden for some time whilst more pressing matters are dealt with, and the tank has now developped into a self-sustaining ecosystem, with algae, whiplash tail type organisms. At some point the biomass will cause some mechanical action, that's for sure.

[path_finder]

dear nicbordeaux,
You can also buy a female and replicate the experiment: http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/files/aquarium1.png

[nicbordeaux]

Deatr path_finder, I once had a 500 liter hot water aquarium with guppies, and all sorts of expensive and exotic fish, some of which bred wildly. The only form of interesting behavior it developped was regularly depleting the pe of my wallet.

I think everybody on this forum is blind, the unstable water tank is one of the solutions, if combined with other more regularly discussed and built systems.