Mr V wrote:I believe all indications are that the prime mover has to be a gravity-assisted momentum asymmetry.
Lifting weights is trivial if you already have excess KE, and excess KE is trivial if the energy cost of momentum is isolated from the V^2 multiplier... ie. in actuality an input deficit, rather than an output 'excess'.
My tuppence worth.
Thanks for your tuppence Mr V, always appreciated ..
Funnily enough I keep coming back to a similar analysis. Momentum based asymmetry.
I've been running your kind of general scenarios on my white board and in my head for the last week or so, with a renewed interest again after a long time away from that direction. It was always a pet theory that if we could find a mechanical Prime Mover made of levers that would allow FULL momentum transfer of collisions of different masses then the excess KE would be a doddle. And then use that excess KE to lift lws and get torque asymmetry.
The conceptual chain seems dandy but finding that particular mech is the real problem for this to have a chance of working in practice. I've been playing with the sim program to see if the current iterations can show a gain which is effectively a CoE violation. So it means a careful and objective look at the basics of momentum and KE, so I don't go right on past something important in the hunt that perhaps the sim can't show (capped).
I may well start a separate thread to discuss the basics of momentum and KE, because I sometimes confuse myself especially when talking about FoR. I seem to have some situations where the sim program seems to treat things differently than what I'd expect ? Don't have a firm conclusion about that just yet. But I've been running slightly different experiments trying to approach the same problem from different angles and I'm not understanding all I'm seeing in sim world. Probably no surprise there ;7)
The 'full momentum transfer' concept is the good kind of rabbit hole.
Inelastic / elastic collisions, mutual accelerations / decelerations (ie. active as well as passive inertial interactions), mixed with gravitational accelerations / decelerations, and maybe changing MoI's too... these are the kinds of elements to be playing with.
We're both wandering in the same direction, just mumbling slightly different word salads, but there has to be some combination of the above terms that actually makes sense and reconciles this case with reality, whether through random chance or sheer elimination. Like i say, not really that many components or permutations possible, it's a finite and eminently tractable problem... just needs time and focus to run through the branching possibilities, whilst knowing what to look for - the anatomy of an asymmetry, the things that make it tick, and not just the gain itself.
'Full momentum transfer' would of course be an effective N3 violation, and also an effective N1 violation, thus breaking CoE by breaking CoM. It would necessarily involve a divergent FoR, and thus the 'FMT' would be pertaining to one or other of those FoR's - ie. from within either, the interaction is fully obedient to all rules of CoM and CoE, but in relation to one, a pair of interacting inertias simply share momentum evenly, whilst in relation to the other, a legitimate 'FMT' has occurred.
We're basically looking at passive / active sides of the same coin - inertial interactions, esp. those involved in gravitational interactions. Whatever the approach, the central exploit and form of the gain is a manipulation of the conditions governing the V^2 multiplier.
Remember, the banging noises were not pro forma.. yet you would no sooner employ collisions as a transmission system, than bullets! A noisy collision is an inelastic inertial interaction, conserving net momentum but not net energy! An accelerating system would at least in principle be capable of hosting a divergent inertial frame (ie. you definitely can't have one without acceleration) - and per Galileo's principle, gravity is equivalent to a uniform acceleration. A differential between angular accelerations vs the effective acceleration of gravity might thus provide the basis for divergent FoR's and thus a CoM and resulting CoE breaks. And whereas in the field of inertial interactions F=MA and its inversions, gravity defies this - the acceleration from the force is not mass-dependent (feather and stone fall at equal rate in vacuum), hence an effective violation of N2.
This is such fertile ground for OU guff, you're almost having to step over it. All B's wheels were vertical, but gravity wheels are impossible, yet nothing about his designs were for appearance's sake only. We know that within their respective fields, both gravitational and inertial interactions are strictly symmetry-bound. But as soon as we start considering their combined interactions, things get much more interesting. All three laws of motion, and thus CoM and CoE, seem to get put through the blender..
Since every step in a successful process would be fully dependent upon all laws holding without ambiguity within their own respective frames of reference - we know CoM is immutable, if not CoE - then by definition we'd be talking about an open thermodynamic system. A non-reciprocal exchange of momentum between the 'closed' system and its environment. Buy a free energy machine, get a free warp drive.
Look forwards to your next thread, this stuff can get quite unintuitive (multiple FoR's) - but it's those 'aha!' moments where you find your bearings..
As for WM's ability to model these kinds of gains, you can already do so right now, by forcing any cyclical CoM violation. Even simpler - since inertia is not speed-dependent, a spring pre-loaded with 1 J of PE can perform any arbitrary amount of work purely as a function of the ambient velocity at which the CoM break is applied.
Whatever the approach, the goal is the same - transposing the cost/value ratio of discrete inertial accelerations up & down the V^2 multiplier via effective CoM manipulations. Gravity violates F=mA, A=F/m and m=F/A, right off the bat. So if FMT's are possible, then inertial interactions combined with gravitational ones is where we might expect to find them.. mutual accelerations and decelerations, elastic and inelastic collisions, between gravitating vs non-gravitating inertias, and maybe also variable inertias in the angular case.
This singular theme is surely one of the most potentially fruitful, if neglected, perspectives from which to consider all of Bessler's illustrations: If the conceptual elements of the exploit reduce to 'periodically-gravitating inertial interactions' then his published works are replete with them; the pendulum and cranked flywheel, with spooled weight or stampers or water screw, is repeated as an idiom. The same elements would also be the basis of any 'subject lessons' developing through MT... culminating in those embodied by the Toys Page, seemingly consistent with a series of five gravity-assisted asymmetric angular accelerations, which if applied between equal inertias would represent a 125% KE gain.
So by whatever means you're obtaining them, you know any such KE gains are potentially viable, with full accordance of, and dependence upon, gravity and inertia behaving precisely as they're supposed to... and there really aren't that many possible permutations to shift through - with a clear head, the path is pretty much lit up like a Christmas tree. I'm convinced it's all but in the bag - just a matter of following the implicit instructions - ie. what not to do if you don't want momentum & KE symmetry..
Contemplate a machine that contains the following. Two rotating systems that contain two different inertias, now I am going to gear them together but at different speeds but I am going to make the masses of both systems have the same momentum. This wouldn’t be nothing in itself, spin one system and since the other gear ratio is different its mass would either go more or less distance (imagine putting a dot on the on the wheel). But what happens when I make both systems share the same weights (switch back and forth) and limit their distance travelled to exactly the same also. There should be a break symmetry as the energy can now not be the same.
Cheers guys .. all beans that need to percolate in my brain a while longer before I can smell the coffee. It always helps to see it written down.
In essence I'm just using the two inputs of natural gravity force and inertia, and elastic collisions. Old ground that was fallowed years ago but I just feel it is time for me to hook up the plough and revisit.
Probably because I can't escape the conclusion that B's MT is all about various forms of lifting masses internally in a wheel. And we know a Prime Mover entity must do that to create the torque we require. So somewhere in there must be the motion and movement we seek that allows a lift of those proportions.
But I'm kinda looking at turning the causation chain on its head (i.e. running it backwards). The un-intuitive part.
As an example of possible convergence and evolution of ideas MT's 34 and 35 are essentially MT31 with slight functional differences. N.B.. MT31 is the basic model with dual lws (quad lws, pairs of pairs) that lift (or fall) thru 180 degs .. MT34 has a rather large scaled bent A for what purpose ? And its lws move thru 90 degs .. MT35 is a slight variation of MT34 and uses the Zed cam lifter and the quad lws also move thru 90 degs.
About MT31 Bessler says ..
There is more to this invention than the mere drawing, which only presents or indicates the problem.
So MT31 indicates the problem and is the first of a series based on apparently the same principle, but the latter ones are not attempting a full 180 degs lift (or fall).
And MT41 fits the frame for me because there is no practical connection of the mistakenly drawn SB's to the subject of the lift.
FWIW .. coordinated dual lws are the equivalent of a perfectly elastic collision.
Hi Fletcher,
I like the wording gravity-assisted momentum asymmetry.
Thats exacly what I have tryed a long time ago with my octagon wheel or named walker.
The problem by my construction was only the ratched. I found a simple constuction for the ratched now.
Both versions of Bessler are running with gravity-assisted momentum asymmetry.
Hi Norman .. no, I don't think the basic idea behind the video has been discussed in its own thread.
AFAIK there are piezoelectric devices around today (mainly small scale low amperage) to collect 'waste' energy and reuse it. I think the idea has been mooted for pedestrian ambulators and for high traffic roads, much like the concept presented.
The problem appears to be that whilst a heavy vehicle (and trailers) moves along a horizontal surface the physics says that it takes no work (f x d) once the 'train' has a certain speed. Of course that is not the case when considering windage losses and rolling friction losses to name just two of the things that consume a little energy, and which needs replenishing by the burning of fuel in this video of tractor and trailers.
Each time the tractor and trailers run over the ramp depressing it to generate electricity, via the gen-set, the ramp obstacle effectively slows the tractor etc by being a source of resistance to its forward motion, like drag forces. So the tractor loses a little momentum and KE, which has to be replenished by stepping on the gas fractionally to get back to the original velocity, momentum and KE.
So I think the author of the proposal is in error to think that it would self perpetuate once the loop is closed. It however is an idea to scavenge energy from others moving between locations by various means and where they probably wouldn't notice the extra fuel bill and a few 'speed humps'.
Thanks Fletcher, you covered that well. Another approach would be to
place it downhill so that it would effectively work like the regenerative
brakes on the Hybrid....
I will make up a simple work in and work out test in a few days.
No. 25. This is similar to the previous model except that it is drawn
somewhat differently and with longer rods; there is something
misleading about the diagram, because the folding rods should not
project so far out but must bend further inward. There is more to this
than one might think. Mark my words.
What exactly does that mean? How do they bend further inward?
Bessler wrote:No. 24: This invention ought not to be scorned.
It consists of separate levers with weights. Between the weights are small iron poles with screw threads. The poles fall inward when the levers close.
There is something one must learn first before one can grasp and correctly understand the good quality of the invention.
Bessler wrote:No. 25: This is the previous model except for some differences. It is sketched with longer poles. There is something misleading about the diagram, for the poles, when coming out, must not project so far out but must bend somewhat further inwardly.
There is more to it than one supposes; one must study the diagram extensively.
No. 25. This is similar to the previous model except that it is drawn somewhat differently and with longer rods; there is something misleading about the diagram, because the folding rods should not project so far out but must bend further inward.
There is more to this than one might think. Mark my words.
What exactly does that mean? How do they bend further inward?
Bessler in wiki wrote:No. 25: This is the previous model except for some differences. It is sketched with longer poles.
There is something misleading about the diagram, for the poles, when coming out, must not project so far out but must bend somewhat further inwardly.
There is more to it than one supposes; one must study the diagram extensively.
Hi dax .. I put up the later Mike Senior translation from the wiki for comparison.
Both MT's 24 and 25 are fundamentally the same device, except that 24 has twice the numbers of sectors than 25.
They both operate on the same principle. A lw falls CW within a sector after 12 o'cl. To the weight end of the lw is attached a pole (rod) connected to something that looks like it has mass (I'll call it a wheel-weight ww). The ww is in turn connected via a further pole rod to the trailing spoke at the rim. As the lw falls under 'g' the poles open up and via pull-thru's connected to the ww affect the contemporary mech on the opposite side of the wheel supposedly pulling up the opposing ww and causing the lw to close to the trailing spoke. It's easier to see in MT24 where both are half way thru the move.
Conventional physics tells us that if the ww's have mass then the CoM of the two opposing sectors can not be raised higher than it started. IOW's it can not gain GoG GPE with either one or both pushing or pulling.
But apparently there is more to study, understand, and learn according to B. Since there isn't much to either drawing mechanically then I speculate that it is the V shape poles opening and closing action that is of mechanical interest/potential here.
There is an obvious fault in MT25 in particular. The bottom lhs corner lw and ww would retract to the closed position with little or no effort required, even if the top rhs lw and V poles hadn't shot out and pulled them.
Overall there is no asymmetric torque produced with this principle so that was not the thing to study and learn about IMO.
To directly answer your question the V poles/rods would be further inwards towards the axle (i.e. bend further inward) but that would depend on the pull-thru rope length but more importantly the relative mass values of the weights on the lw's and the ww and poles themselves etc. N.B. if the ww has substantial mass then the drawing would be wrong and the poles would be further inward as B says, IMO.
