Gravity

[rlortie]

That is because centrifugal force is a fictitious force:

Often, centripetal force is confused with centrifugal force. While centripetal force is a real force,-that is, the force is due to the influence of some object or field-centrifugal force is a fictitious force. A fictitious force is present only when a system is examined from an accelerating frame of reference. If the same system is examined from a non-accelerating frame of reference, all the fictitious forces disappear. For example, a person on a rotating merry-go-round would experience a centrifugal force that pulls away from the center of the ride. The person experiences this force only because he or she is on the rotating merry-go-round, which is an accelerating frame of reference. If the same system is analyzed from the sidewalk next to the merry-go-round, which is a non-accelerating frame of reference, there is no centrifugal force. The individual on the sidewalk would only note the centripetal force that keeps the individual moving in a circular path. In general, real forces are present regardless of whether the reference frame used is accelerating or not accelerating; fictitious forces are present only in an accelerating frame of reference.

The person must counter act his balance on the curves to stand up during a curve of the train ride, a centripetal force is applied to/by the individual that keeps the person moving in a circular path. If the person were to let go, he or she would travel in a straight line (if gravity were absent). In general, the centripetal force that needs to be applied to an object of mass m that is traveling in a circular path of radius r at a constant velocity v is mv2/r

Forwards or backwards the train rider does not experience any centrifugal force when the train is on a straight stretch of track. Centrifugal is only felt when rounding a curve. It has no value as a force to apply forward motion to a radial or straight moving mass. IMO what is changing when the person changes direction is kinetic force. CF is based on speed of train and radius of curve. The passanger is part of the moving train and he motions are related to said train, I find it hard to believe that CF will show a change in regards his direction, providing the train maintains speed and curve of track.

I do not believe that Bessler's wheels used CF for motivation other than to possibly assist in weight movement which would be canceled by the centripetal force on the opposing side.

If the passanger attempts to move from one side of the train to the other while rounding a curve, then CF will play a more major role, he will find himself applying more or less centripetal force depending upon moving in or out of the curvature. If train is traveling on staight track once again neither apply.

"Centripetal Force," Microsoft(R) Encarta(R) 97 Encyclopedia. (c) 1993-1996 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

Ralph

[jim_mich]

I've been attempting to keep my discussion on very simple terms so that the first step in the concept can be understood. In reality my research has progressed very much further.

The passanger is part of the moving train and he motions are related to said train, I find it hard to believe that CF will show a change in regards his direction, providing the train maintains speed and curve of track.

CF depends on the speed of the person/object and not on the speed of only the train. Look at the formula that you posted CF = "mv2/r". CF depends on the square of velocity.

If the passanger attempts to move from one side of the train to the other while rounding a curve, then CF will play a more major role, he will find himself applying more or less centripetal force depending upon moving in or out of the curvature.

Yes, in order to make use of the CF the person/weight/object will need to be allowed to move in or out. Like I said initially I'm trying to keep the discussion simple. If one weight moves forward and out while another moves rearward and in, then there seems to be more than enough CF energy to cause them to move. The result of their move shifts the weights both inward/outward and forward/rearward. Combined this causes the center of gravity to suddenly shift upward while they are moving.

If train is traveling on staight track once again neither apply.

My analogy is comparing the train on a curve to a wheel, so a straight track is not being considered.

If a weight can shift forward & backward at a constant radius then this requires a small amount of energy as you say but unless it changes radius then no extra potential is created imo.

The second step is they also move in and out as they swing. But without understanding that CF is a product of the velocity squared and that a faster swinging weight gains more CF than a slower swinging weight loses, then nothing else accomplishes anything.

[Fletcher]

I've been attempting to keep my discussion on very simple terms so that the first step in the concept can be understood. In reality my research has progressed very much further.

Are you still planning the build details at this stage ? WM wasn't being very co-operative IIRC ?

If one weight moves forward and out while another moves rearward and in, then there seems to be more than enough CF energy to cause them to move. The result of their move shifts the weights both inward/outward and forward/rearward. Combined this causes the center of gravity to suddenly shift upward while they are moving.

Shifting the combined CoG of the coupled weights upwards would perhaps be indicative of the top on the toy page ? I assume that the CoG moves upwards because the outside (forward) moving weight exerts a greater pull on its partner because of the squared velocity relationship ?

The second step is they also move in and out as they swing. But without understanding that CF is a product of the velocity squared and that a faster swinging weight gains more CF than a slower swinging weight loses, then nothing else accomplishes anything.

Sort of sounds like you are using the z dimension ? That may require the weights to be spring loaded if that is the case ?

[jim_mich]

Shifting the combined CoG of the coupled weights upwards would perhaps be indicative of the top on the toy page ?

Interesting, I never thought of it that way. I think you're right.

Sort of sounds like you are using the z dimension ?

No, just 2D. Maybe I should have said "move closer and farther from the axle" rather than "move in and out."

Springs might help it to achieve a very low speed startup. I don't think they are needed for it to work.

WM if very uncooperative. Building details are about 95 percent complete. Hopefully building will start in the next few days, then get interupted between the holidays.

[bluesgtr44]

I am having a hard time trying to relate a horizontal situation as is being described here and turning it vertical, as is the wheel...and seeing this apply in the same way. Maybe I am not understanding the relationship. I mean, gravitational effect would not be the same, would it?


Steve

[Vic Hays]

It does not seem that gravity needs to be in the picture at all. It is necessary for rotation and CF only.

A horizontal assembly should work just as well. Instead of the CG moving upward there should be an unbalanced CF driving the wheel in a rotary manner.

[jim_mich]

Steve,
The horizontal situation is only to make explaining CF easier without cluttering it up with gravity.

Vic,
CF will only drive the weights closer/farther from the axle and simultaniously forward/backward around the wheel. It takes gravity on the unbalanced weights to turn the wheel.

The important thing to understand is the strength of CF depends on the square of the velocity and is not linear. (See graph)

[rlortie]

This topic is moving in such a manner that it reminds me of the design Claudio hit me with. I never did get around to testing his design after he announced it as a runner. It is still in my confidential records

Any way, what is being said here is very similar in more ways than one!

Ralph

[winkle]

jim_mich wrote

Why would the one slowing down win the race? I don't think so.

Jim
if you take one step toward the back of the train you are no longer travailing the same speed as the train and it will try to run out from under you making it easer to run to the back than to the front

just my opinion as to what was happening the last time i walked forward and backward on a train

kinda had the feel of a government subsidized assist as long as you were going backward

[jim_mich]

if you take one step toward the back of the train you are no longer travailing the same speed as the train and it will try to run out from under you making it easer to run to the back than to the front

It's true you will be no longer traveling the same speed, but the reat is not true. I see you've not much experience walking on a train. If the train is moving at a constant straight velocity then there is no difference between walking forward or rearward.

As a child on my Dad's farm we kids used to practice walking on the flat bed wagon as it was going to to the fields. It was just as easy to walk forward as to walk rearward, until Dad hit the brakes or the gas.

Another example is the Earth hurdling through space. If there was a difference then we would notice it when walking East verses West.

[winkle]

two balls on the floor in the center of the train
using same force on each ball
push one forward and the other to the rear of the train

when they stop rolling will both balls be a equal distance from their starting point

[ovyyus]

Winkle, perhaps the train you were walking through and experimenting on was chugging uphill? In that case it would obviously be easier to walk backwards to your bunk after an adventurous evening up front with the lads and your balls certainly would roll differently when pushed equally in either direction.


Jim, if your concept is workable (to be honest, I think it isn't) then where is the energy source that drives the mechanism and any applied load? Is it Gravity, Inertia, Bessler's 4th law of motion (forgive me), something else? If we charted energy transformation from primary source to applied load how do you think it would read?

[Wheeler]

That's funny Jim
I walked a many hay trailer in my day, and I remember when starting to go to the rear while it was traveling forward, I would run into the bales with force unless I was ready with holding myself back with my feet.

[ovyyus]

Wheeler, you hit the rear of the hay trailer as it accelerated forward. Jim clearly wasn't talking about an accelerating train or tailer or wagon or World - therefore, what you said seems funnier.

[jim_mich]

when they stop rolling will both balls be a equal distance from their starting point

Yes, as long as the train is level and traveling at a constant speed.

where is the energy source

Good question. I've been trying to figure that one out myself. I think is has something to do with time, relativity and speed, but not in the Einstien way. I'll see if I can work out an explaination.

A similar question is why does CF quadruple when you double the object's velocity?