Big Troubles Brewing For The Theoretical Physics Smart-Set!!!

[Grimer]

They were balanced when stationary and I'm quite sure remained balanced when rotating. Bessler said the weights of his wheels gained force from their motions. Gravity cannot rotate a balanced wheel. Which is why it needed to be push started.

Apparently you have not considered the possibility that the wheel could be balanced at certain positions and unbalanced at others.

This would be identical behavior to the child's playground swing. When the child is straight up and down the system is balanced. Then when the swing is at the extremities, the system is unbalanced. The system then oscillates between the balanced and unbalanced nodes.

My four weight simulation solution behaves in exactly this manner. One of the weights is always extending to the rim while the other is retracting just as you say. But the other two are doing something else. The two weights simultaneously extending and retracting compare exactly to the child's legs extending and retracting, pumping the wheel instead of the swing.

At the balanced nodes a small push start is required. At the unbalanced nodes, the system will self start, again just like the playground swing.

The peacock's tail effect then occurs halfway between the balanced and unbalanced nodes and appears four times per wheel revolution.

The child's playground swing then becomes a proper subset mathematically speaking of the four weight rotary solution. I see no way to produce the effect with just two weights so we will have to agree to disagree on that point!

I would actually consider the child's playground swing to be the two weight solution as the child's body acts as one weight and the legs as the other.

@ cloud camper.

Re-reading your post I can see that your swing action is obviously on the right track. What I have done is to simplify the action by inverting it so that the rider is upside down at the top and the chain is bent near the top. This inversion reminds me of something similar I devised earlier in my career. I wrote it up somewhere. I'll have to see if I can dig it out.

[Grimer]

Found it.

======================================
There was an interesting incident occurred whilst we were making density measurements, an incident which illustrates two aspects of research which were later to become very important, the possibility of conceptual inversion and the psychological difficulty of such an inversion.

To find the density of a piece of material one needs to measure two quantities. The weight of the material – straightforward enough, just stick it on a balance – and the volume of a material.

Finding the volume of a material is easy enough when the material is a nice simple shape like a cube or a cylinder; you just make measurements and use the appropriate mathematical formula.

When the material is irregular, like a roughly hacked piece of soil cement or a king’s crown then there’s more of a problem as Archimedes realised. The solution which came to him in his bath and led to him shouting Eureka and running through the streets naked (allegedly) has never been improved upon and it is his method, more specifically its inverse, which we used to find the volume of our soil-cement pieces.

Nowadays Archimedes’ discovery is normally expressed in the form,

“The loss of weight in water is equal to the volume of water displaced.�

Strictly speaking, the loss of weight in water is equal to the weight of water displaced but since 1 cc of water weighs one gram more or less, one of the more useful features about the metric system, we can jump directly from loss of weight to volume.

Using this principle then the volume of a lump of stuff can be measured by hanging it by a thin thread from one arm of a lever balance to measure its weight and then letting out the thread until it is immersed in a beaker of water when its weight is again measured.

The original weight is its weight. The loss in weight is its volume. So the original weight divided by the loss in weight is its density.

The Concrete Division were using just such a system for measuring the density gradients of core slices cut from concrete roads. Because we didn’t have a suitable lever balance we thought we would be clever and do it slightly differently. Using a pan balance we measured not the loss in the weight of the specimen but the gain in the weight of the water when we hung a specimen in the water.

On day our Division Head, Dr Maclean, was walking through the lab and he happened to see me holding one end of the piece of cotton and calling out the scale readings to my colleague. He stood and watched for a while looking puzzled.

wwww"What are you doing Grimer?�

wwww“I’m measuring the volume of these soil-cement pieces, sir.�

wwww“But the volume is equal to the loss in weight of the specimen. You are holding the end of the string. How can you measure the loss in weight like that.�

wwww“I’m not measuring the loss in weight of the specimen, sir. I’m
measuring the gain in weight of the water.�

wwww“Are you sure you can do that, Grimer?�

His incredulity was so palpable that I almost started having doubts myself. It was like when your wife asks you for the third time if you turned the gas off when you left the house to go on holiday
.
wwww“Pretty sure. After all, the weight has to go somewhere, doesn’t it! It can’t just disappear.�

He walked slowly away looking very unconvinced. In retrospect I can’t really blame him. When all your life you have been used to seeing a thing done one way, its very difficult to accept that it can also be done in completely the opposite way. Standing there holding one end of a thread with the specimen dangling in a beaker of water at the other it must have seemed as though I was engaged in some mystic rite of pendulum divination.
======================================

In view of the proof of principle experiment I described above the term "pendulum divination" was rather prescient.

[cloud camper]

I like it Frank - So we have a two-weight rider and legs at the top and another two-weight rider and legs at the bottom.

Now all we need to add is those jerk like impacts to stop the weights from going over into that "empty and light" area and we have it!

Nice work!

[Grimer]

Quite so. We have to lock things up, which is effectively a zero 2nd order energy action, and then unlock them at appropriate points in the cycle.

I'm afraid I couldn't get my head around that problem which is why I had to resort to the very simplest system possible. The last stage of experimentation was like having all the numbers of the lottery without the last. One is almost too frightened to look since one knows that if your number comes up things are changed forever. Primemignonite certainly hit on the right title for this thread.

[Grimer]

If you think about it, subjecting a locked device to a force is the same as a steel wheel applied to a steel rail. No significant deformation therefore no work done by the force - which is why a steel wheel on a steel rail is so efficient of course.

[cloud camper]

OK Frank, so we need to have two arms locked while two arms are extending and retracting. Then later, functions are reversed as JB says.

So how could we get two riders to pump the wheel and simultaneously stay
clear (or mostly clear) of the "empty and light" prohibited zone?

[Grimer]

I defer to your expertise on that one.

[Grimer]

When you think about it you can see that my point of principle experiment (PoP) is the inverse of Sjack's device.

He is bringing a weight towards the middle by pushing them with a slope whereas the PoP is pulling a weight (the snooker ball) towards the middle with the pendulum arm. He is employing push third derivative in contrast to the PoP which employs pull third derivative.

It's pretty clear he must have continuous rotation. His big mistake is going for commercial exploitation rather than scientific explanation.

I think I understand why he is cagey about the design of his weights.

[Grimer]

Rather than forcing the pendulum bob toward the centre with a double jointed pendulum arm it is better to force it towards the centre using Sjack's concept of a rigid slope.



In effect one is applying a third derivative energy push rather than pull. The fact that it is third derivative is clearly shown by the elliptical shape of the rising slope. Continue that ellipse to its zenith and one is looking at a precessed circle - and as doubt you are all aware precession is a third derivative action, a jerk (in the technical sense of the third derivative of position with respect to time).

Now inspection of the above diagram makes it obvious that if one can get the bob to rise above its starting point one can allow it to roll back down and reset. One can achieve perpetual motion.

I find it difficult to believe that Sjack has not succeeded in achieving this though I don't suppose he understands the scientific logic which underlies the Sjack effect any more than Bessler did. Inventors don't work that way and it would seem the Sjack is a successful inventor, judging from the size of his house on Streetview at least.

[Grimer]

Right - I'll try a different tack.

Let's grant that Galileo was right and that by the time the straight pendulum bob has risen to 9 o'clock both it and the crooked pendulum bob are at the same height.

One thing that is manifestly different however is the the crooked pendulum bob has moved towards the centre. I noticed that (obviously) in my PoP experiment and regarded it as a bit of a nuisance at the time since it meant I had to move the detector bar towards the centre.

However, I now recognise the importance of this action. Moving horizontally requires no second order energy which is consistent with the action of stopping the upper arm of the pendulum with an arrester bar, a third order derivative action, which also requires no energy.

But moving the crooked pendulum's weight towards the centre does unbalance a multi weight system.

I think that between us Cloud Camper and I are closing in on the answer.

[Grimer]

Rather than forcing the pendulum bob toward the centre with a double jointed pendulum arm it is better to force it towards the centre using Sjack's concept of a rigid slope.



In effect one is applying a third derivative energy push rather than pull. The fact that it is third derivative is clearly shown by the elliptical shape of the rising slope. Continue that ellipse to its zenith and one is looking at a precessed circle - and as doubt you are all aware precession is a third derivative action, a jerk (in the technical sense of the third derivative of position with respect to time).

Now inspection of the above diagram makes it obvious that if one can get the bob to rise above its starting point one can allow it to roll back down and reset. One can achieve perpetual motion.

I find it difficult to believe that Sjack has not succeeded in achieving this though I don't suppose he understands the scientific logic which underlies the Sjack effect any more than Bessler did. Inventors don't work that way and it would seem the Sjack is a successful inventor, judging from the size of his house on Streetview at least.

That's funny (funny peculiar not funny ha-ha). I'd edited the above post to point out there was a flaw in the idea that the slope was pushing the weight towards the centre and my edit seems to have disappeared. Maybe I previewed it and forgot to submit it.

Never mind - things have moved on since then.

[daanopperman]

Hi Grimer ,
Once built , you will find your pendulum does not move far past 7 o clock .

[Grimer]

It has been and it does.

Oops! Sorry - I thought you were talking about the pendulum experiment.

As for the slope experiment you could well be right - but I've already given up on that one anyway.

[Grimer]

Hi Grimer ,
Once built , you will find your pendulum does not move far past 7 o clock .

Thanks for that, Daan. You've made me realise I had things the wrong way around.

One has to drop the weight down an elliptical path and let it rise up the circular path. At the top of the circular path it is thrown vertically upwards.

The reasoning behind it is this.

Dropping down the elliptical path the curvature is constantly increasing from zero at the top (centre of curvature at a great distance) to some large value at the bottom (centre of curvature close to the weight).

The slope is applying Force x Time towards a moving centre of curvature. In other words is subjecting the weight to third derivative action (Jerk).
This is giving the weight jerk energy. Had this action been applied by a string pulling in the weight in towards the moving centre of curvature then second derivative work, i.e. Force x Distance, would have been needed.

Because the slope doesn't move in applying its force no second derivative energy is needed.

Clearly, this explains the purpose of the rapid change of curvature in the Sjack Abeling gravity motor at the "hook" section where the weights are launched up the fixed slope.

There is one other important feature which Sjack's device must have. One doesn't want to put lose energy in rotation of the weights so one want to have the weights supported on their axles as in the Keenie. These axles will have a ball race so as no shear is transmitted to the main body of the weight. The inertia of the axles is minimal so no significant energy is lost there.

I'll draw up an illustration later.

[daanopperman]

Hi Grimer ,
The reason I see why it slows down so quickly is you have at the bottom of the swing 4 times the weight of the mass on the rails and the velocity of the mass diminish as it tries to climb the gradient in so short time , it is the time factor versus the distance traveled , but like you say , if turned around it would not slow down , but that might not be what you need .