Perpetual Motion is Impossible

jim_mich · Post by **jim_mich** » Sun Dec 27, 2015 11:29 pm

A search for the phrase "gradient gravitational field" returns 32 hits in all of Google Land. I think it is NOT a commonly known or understood phrase. So what makes it different from simply a "gravitational field"? "Gradient" is one of those obscure words used by Ralph and a few others.

eccentrically1 · Post by **eccentrically1** » Sun Dec 27, 2015 11:46 pm

No difference to me, I think it's a redundancy?

jim_mich · Post by **jim_mich** » Sun Dec 27, 2015 11:48 pm

eccentrically1 wrote: I think it's a redundancy?

That was my feeling.

Trevor Lyn Whatford · Mon Dec 28, 2015 12:00 am

jim_mich wrote:
Marchello wrote:Can anybody tell why a gradient gravitational field would be beneficial in achieving perpetual motion?
Yes, why would a gravitational field be beneficial in achieving perpetual motion?

I can see no benefit. Any gravitational input must be re-used to re-lift the weights back upward, thus no rotational gain whatsoever.

Its a shame you quite looking, because there has to be a force or energy input to sustain rotation of any rotating device here on earth.

Edit, Watch the wind down time.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QtxoEP5eL84

Edit, many times, trouble with long links.

daxwc · Post by **daxwc** » Mon Dec 28, 2015 12:04 am

Jim:

As an example. Assume you have two weights moving a same speed. Transfer momentum from one weight to the other weight. This can be done spontaneously in a rotating environment of a wheel with little or no effect on the rotation. Do the math. Assume both weights were moving at say 20 feet/second and both weights have a same mass of two units. The weight's KE is 1/2 Ã— 2_mass Ã— V^2. Since 1/2 Ã— 2 equal 1, we can make the formula very simple as KE = V^2. Thus KE of each weight equals 20^2 = 400 KE units. Total KE combined of two weights is 800 KE units.

Now one weight spontaneously gives up half its velocity to the other weight.
Weight #1 V = 10 ft/s. Its KE = 10^2 = 100 KE units.
Weight #2 v = 30 ft/s. Its KE = 30^2 = 900 KE units.
Total KE combined of two weights is 1000 KE units.

Thus we gained 200 KE units simply by allowing motion to transfer from a weight that is slowing down to a weight that is speeding up. We added no energy. Momentum was conserved. The weights changed their velocities spontaneously without consuming any energy.

or :

WAS THIS EXAMPLE TOO HARD TO FOLLOW ???
The formula for inertial momentum is IM = m Ã— v.
The formula for kinetic energy is KE = 0.5 Ã— m Ã— v^2.

The result is that as the IM increases in a linear fashion, then the KE increased exponentially.

I am a dense I guess, cause I can't see the difference in things I see. So Jim explain to me why wouldn't a Newton's Cradle wouldn't show a energy gain if all that was true?

Wouldn't your theory have a two ball Newton's Cradle going higher than a pendulum dropped at the same height?

I must be missing something or lots.

jim_mich · Post by **jim_mich** » Mon Dec 28, 2015 12:11 am

A Newton's cradle is a horse of a different color.

A Newton's cradle isn't operating in a rotating environment.

ME · Post by ME » Mon Dec 28, 2015 12:52 am

A Newton's cradle isn't operating in a rotating environment.

Yes, it should.

Add: just tried to simulate: ... still should, but not nicely.

ME · Post by ME » Mon Dec 28, 2015 1:03 am

When a mass attached to a lever rotates a rotating disc, it will act like a pendulum in a rotating frame.
It 'pendulates' towards the centrifugal acceleration.
This centrifugal acceleration acts like a gradient gravitational field, a=w^2*r.
Hence my question earlier.

Add:

A rotating Newton's cradle would look like this:

A motor with a constant velocity rotates the wheel, so the weights do not affect rotation.
The weights are initially locked to obtain the same velocity, they are released at a certain time.
In WM2D, for each joint that locks: "Active when:" Body[1].p.r<90

In the current state, all the weight will remain motionless (relative to rotation), and the offset one pendulates between its two neighbors.
To get relative momentum transfer it needs an extra slight push.

Edit/Add.2:
For any interested (Currently I doubt that)
1. The "90" is 90 degrees
2. Gravity off, as it demonstrates only the centrifugal

Trevor Lyn Whatford · Post by **Trevor Lyn Whatford** » Mon Dec 28, 2015 1:25 am

Hi Jim_Mich,

This may help,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeB4aAVQMug

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0RVyhd3E9hY

Grimer · Post by **Grimer** » Mon Dec 28, 2015 1:55 am

jim_mich wrote:A search for the phrase "gradient gravitational field" returns 32 hits in all of Google Land. I think it is NOT a commonly known or understood phrase. So what makes it different from simply a "gravitational field"? "Gradient" is one of those obscure words used by Ralph and a few others.

A gradient gravitational field is one in which the acceleration towards a point on the earth changes with height.

In the case of EG it changes with the distance from the rotating perimeter to the centre of rotation.

jim_mich · Post by **jim_mich** » Mon Dec 28, 2015 1:59 am

Trevor Lyn Whatford wrote:Hi Jim_Mich,

This may help,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeB4aAVQMug

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0RVyhd3E9hY

[sarcasm] Duh, I'm a big dummy and don't know how and why ice-skaters spin. Thus I need TLW to teach me with his video. [end sarcasm]

Don't you see? This is insulting to me. You assume I need schooling about CF and spinning skaters.

I might assume you are only trying to be helpful?

justsomeone asked in another thread

Why must you boast about being brighter than most here?

This is the exact reason. Some members (TLW?) are arrogant and assume I'm very ignorant. They assume I don't know all about centrifugal forces.

I'm well past the design stage.
I'm well past figuring out what will happen.
I'm very close to having 97 percent of the wheel parts made.
It sure is too late to be changing designs here in the middle of the stream.
So spinning ice skaters are long gone in the past.

Do I lack enough patients here ???

jim_mich · Post by **jim_mich** » Mon Dec 28, 2015 2:06 am

Grimer wrote:A gradient gravitational field is one in which the acceleration towards a point on the earth changes with height.

All gravity fields change with height, thus adding "gradient" is superfluous.

Grimer wrote:In the case of EG it changes with the distance from the rotating perimeter to the centre of rotation.

All EG (centrifugal forces) change with radial distance, thus adding "gradient" is again superfluous.

Fletcher · Post by **Fletcher** » Mon Dec 28, 2015 2:10 am

Plenty of patients (Americanism ?), but maybe not so much patience (as we say down under).

ME · Post by ME » Mon Dec 28, 2015 2:28 am

Or, "Assumption" is the mother of all <insert Murphy's law>

Trevor Lyn Whatford · Post by **Trevor Lyn Whatford** » Mon Dec 28, 2015 3:20 am

Hi Jim_Mich,

Thank you for showing me your patients, I will leave you to it. I have more futile experiments to do.

Good luck with your build!

Edit, Art and Physics,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UdQCCjQNg8Q sorry it only lasted 17 seconds.
For anybody like my self who is interest in Angular momentum, and will not take offence.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeB4aAVQMug

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0RVyhd3E9hY

BesslerWheel.com

Perpetual Motion is Impossible

re: Perpetual Motion is Impossible

re: Perpetual Motion is Impossible

re: Perpetual Motion is Impossible

re: Perpetual Motion is Impossible

re: Perpetual Motion is Impossible