Protoclocks, escapements and closing the loop in PM

[WaltzCee]

cloud camper,

Do you still have the graphics you had posted in this thread. When I was looking at the mechanism that made this com path:

I found your thread and thought it might be helpful to tap into the energy it seemed to be producing.

Just curious.

[cloud camper]

Hey Walt - thanks for your interest.

I really can't relate your diagram to anything occurring with my experiment but I would be happy to discuss anything of interest.

Apparently Photobucket is now a pay only site so I will have to find the original images and move them to a new photo hosting site but if there's
anything specific you're interested in I could try and dig it up.

This project is still active but on hold due to other priorities at the moment.

Thanks Walt!

[WaltzCee]

Hello CC,

That was a screenshot from wm2d of the CoM
of a mechanism I invented/discovered.
I spun it up with a motor in simulation
and it still moved (maybe about 10-12%)
in spite of the g-force being close to the sun's.

18" or 45.72cm
240 rpm
29.442217 g-force

I used this calculator for that:
http://www.endmemo.com/bio/grpm.php

I used another calculator and it came to 29.49.

I thought I had found the prime mover and
it was gravity powered, gravity power to drive
a gravity imbalance. That's what lead me
to this thread. I was looking for a way to
tap that power.

I've since come back just to enjoy the read
but it isn't the same without the graphics.
It was a lot of effort but now somewhat
diminished.

That's water under the bridge but I thought
it would be a great idea to take threads like
yours and put them in a "collection of papers"
section on the forum. People could open up
threads and discuss a "paper" but the original
would be preserved without comments. It
would make for easier reading.

Cracking Apologia "Wheel Page" by Oystein
is another excellent example of a gem that
could be culled out of the many, many,
many, many, many uncountable words here.
It would be way cool if he was putting some
hidden codes of his own in the thread. :)
I think this idea would add tremendous value
to the forum.

Just a crazy thought.

I've since moved my thinking back to the idea
of a simple out of balanced wheel similar to
design like this one:



That was one amazing thing.

0.1" or 0.254cm
9,208,333 rpm
240,789,504 g-force

Holy bovine defecation, Batman! I've created a
black hole! Well only in simulation but I think
a redesign of it has some promise and also
simpler than building a spring storage escapement
to drive the imbalance. That's what I was looking
for but I've shifted gears.

Thanks for your time, CC.

[cloud camper]

stay tuned to this bat channel! (testing gif images)

[rlortie]

https://postimg.org/image/ttdci78hn/

[cloud camper]

OK folks, getting back to this project after a several year break.

The idea here is to perform the Gravesande CF experiment with and without a delay before the reaction occurs.

Still have to complete calculations but if we apply a 200 in-lb torque to both wheels equally for 4 seconds we can compare the results.

With the standard Gravesande test the lifted weight stabilizes quite quickly
at 60 inches height gained. Slight initial oscillation to 67 inches.

Everyone knows this result is completely conservative with steady state conditions occurring. Outside energy is input with the lifted weight assuming a height that exactly agrees with COE calculations (also accounting for the residual RKE in the wheel).

However if we delay release of the swing weight until the wheel has achieved maximum rpm we get a noticeably different result, the lifted weight then achieving 233 inches height gained, approx 3.5/1 gain over the steady state COE version on the left.

The idea then is to use a equal amount of GPE to spin up each wheel then note the height gained by the lifted weights.

The standard experiment on the left achieves a lower rpm since the swing weight is allowed to swing immediately raising the MOI of the wheel where
the delayed experiment achieves a much higher rpm as the MOI is kept small until the swing weight is released at 4 sec.

A RESONANT condition is then created on the lifted weight of the delayed version that oscillates both above and below the steady state COE height gained by the standard Gravesande experiment.

If we wait for the resonant condition to stabilize, as there is no further excitation of the lifted weight, we note that the weight eventually assumes the same height and rpm shown by the standard experiment.

So we know the initial and final energy states are identical for both experiments.

Of course we want to catch the lifted weight at it's highest point,
then storing our gain. This is done on the first bounce.

In the physical test rig, there is no actual lifted weight rather we use an arm such
that the shock impulse is then applied against a ratcheting escapement spring, preserving our gain.

The trick then is to close loop the process, which hopefully the device will accomplish but with a potential 3.5/1 gain the energy should be sufficient with
enough to make up for frictional losses and possibly do a small amount of external work.

Is this a claim to PM? Not in any way. But the gain hypothesis is presented for analysis.

We input the same torque for the same 4 seconds into both wheels, creating a RESONANT EXCITATION in the lifted weight that oscillates substantially above and below the steady state COE condition,
then trap the GPE attained at the highest point.

Have we created energy?

We can argue completely correctly that no, we have NOT created energy since the AVERAGE (mean) energy is exactly the same as the standard steady state experiment at all times.
We have only created an oscillation of energy, a phenomenon as common as dirt.

But on the other hand, there is nothing to stop us from trapping the lifted weight at any time we choose during it's vertical oscillation.

We have then converted a transient, unstable, not quite real vibration energy into fixed GPE by the simple process of catching the weight!

So it doesn't really matter how you would like to argue as long as we trap the lifted weight at maximum amplitude.

Results are the same either way one would choose to argue the point. So no one is wrong, everyone wins!

We have violated no conservation laws yet we lock in a hypothetical 3.5/1 gain!

Did Bessler use Jerk Energy???

Definite maybe!

But now we have a legitimate physical mechanism that can cause a weight to rise suddenly while requiring no extra input energy.

How many more physical mechanisms that cause a weight to rise suddenly are we likely to find?

Don't we have an expert on 3rd derivative energy around here somewhere?

Who was that guy??

Provisional Patent applied for.

[Georg Künstler]

wow, a very very clever construction.

Using like a yoyo effect to lift suddenly a weight on th other side. Hard to calculate but a very clever idea. it will not be Besslers solution because we had to arrange the forces into a permanent rotation.

What I can not see in your construction is the start condition. Is the start condition given by the left weight putting up and down, or is it given by the rotation of the right turning mechanism ?

[cloud camper]

Thanks Georg, glad you like the experiment!

Yes the initial conditions are that a torque of 200 in-lb is applied equally to both wheels at startup for 4 sec then allowed to freewheel.

With the standard experiment on the left the swing weight is allowed to swing immediately at startup thus raising MOI reducing rpm.

In the delayed experiment, the identical torque is applied but the swing weight is not allowed to swing until 4 sec, right when the torque shuts off.

So we achieve a much higher rpm before the swing weight is released due to the lower MOI.

But now we have created an explosive condition where the swing weight is released to swing under already high CF conditions.

Also keep in mind the delayed wheel has NO MORE total energy than the meek and mild steady state standard version.

We simply use the transient shock condition to create a large resonant excitation in the lifted weight that oscillates violently about the stable COE height obtained by the standard experiment.

We may call this impulse energy, shock energy, jerk energy or 3rd derivative of position energy, your choice.

This energy is a cubed function since we are accelerating the swing weight in an already accelerating (rotating) reference frame. So forces get very large, very fast.

Cubed forces are outrageous since we are squaring an already squared force!

So what can we do with a free force that gets very large, very fast but doesn't last very long?

How about attaching to an external weight and see how far we can lift it?

It is important to note that no additional input energy is required to produce this effect (that's the free part).

Since the wheels both stabilize at the same rpm - about 100 - and the lifted weights both stabilize at 60 inches and there is no air friction, all the input energy is still there and we know they were both equal.

How many other mechanisms could we expect to find that can fling a 100 lb weight 20 feet in the air for no extra energy cost?

Could Bessler have missed discovering such a violent reaction that does exactly what he was looking for?

Doubtful!

So money for nothing and your chicks for free! (hypothetically of course)

https://youtu.be/6CB9OrGZ7-c

Sorry, had to do it!

[cloud camper]

From the above experiment we can now postulate the First Law of PM.

Possibly being a bit presumptuous here and this is no doubt way above my paygrade but should probably attempt it before someone else does!
It can always be tweaked later, probably multiple times!

OK so here goes ---

FIRST LAW of PM: Overunity conditions in a closed mechanical system suitable for powering a PM device exist only during very brief, transient conditions occurring when a fixed amount of dynamic (kinetic) energy is distributed such that a near instantaneous change in kinetic energy distribution is required when the mechanical configuration is rapidly changed during operation. This near instantaneous redistribution of kinetic energy can result in energy oscillations in a suitable mechanism for which the amplitude can greatly but only briefly exceed steady state conditions.

COROLLARY 1: Energy oscillations are created by nature in an attempt to readjust energy distribution to a new dynamic and changing mechanical configuration. Nature cannot do this instantaneously neither does it know in advance the stable final energy distribution so the result is an attempt to compensate for the new configuration by overshooting the stable final energy distribution. This results in a temporary energy oscillation that is dissipated as the stable final distribution is approached.

COROLLARY 2: The faster the mechanical configuration is changed while operating dynamically, the larger the energy oscillations produced as the system senses more "pressure" to readjust energy distribution. The energy distribution desires an equal "pressure" at all points in the mechanical system. When the configuration of a dynamic mechanical system is rapidly changed, the "pressure" to redistribute kinetic energy becomes high, resulting in energy disturbances experienced as oscillations as the system tries to achieve equal energy distribution. This "pressure" to equalize energy distribution can be envisioned similar to a temperature equalization process.

OK - 30 minutes to pop that out - lets see how long it survives intact!

I am sure this definition will please exactly no one (not even me!) but I believe it defines the results of the above experiment so have to go with it.

What other mechanical configurations might fit the definition?

I have no flippin clue!

Your mileage may vary!

[justsomeone]

Hi camper. Imagine a setup that just involves 2 weights connected by a rope with a pulley between them. The lighter weight to be lifted weighs 100 lbs. , the heavier weight, doing the lifting, weighs 150 lbs. First experiment, the heavy weight drops 10 feet while lifting the lighter weight 10 feet. The second experiment, the heavy weight still drops 10 feet but there is slack in the line for the first 5 feet. How high does the lighter weight rise?

[cloud camper]

Sounds interesting JS!

Not really sure although both weights will be jerked toward each other. That will cause some kind of oscillation for sure.

I will try it in WM and post it! Should the rope be elastic or not?

Thanks!

[justsomeone]

I wouldn't mind seeing both. 😊

[Fletcher]

Hi CC .. I like your ideas here. Just for clarity it seems to me that the INPUT energy to get the thing(s) spinning is all important in terms of energy OUTPUT comparison ?

I mean, it is a great result to get different height gains by quite some margin with a delayed action. That in itself is noteworthy.

But what was the initial energy INPUT in Joules into the two devices as compared to the maximum height gain GPE increase in Joules for both as percentages etc ?

I think that may shed some light on simulated efficiencies etc and help me see the picture clearer.

[Georg Künstler]

Hi Cloud Camper,I think your Definition will Not last for long. I think it will be completed With something like a Feedback loop.
You Asked for a mechanical device which will fulfil that. I have such a device nearly ready. But without simulation software I have to change the parts again and again to get closer to the complete run.
And to answer Fletchers question, my start weight will be 10 kg. This weight is the repeating force in a loop.

[iacob alex]

.....at : https://youtu.be/TGqfqGgJKb4
Al_ex