Fletcher's Wheel - Ingenuity verses Entropy

[Fletcher]

Hi Chris .. that you don't understand my last post is not surprising - first I was talking about the sim hangar & battery experiment (you'd have to re-read that portion of the thread) & not my Motion Wheel design with the flail etc that you mention - I'm moving to that shortly but I started with context that becomes important to why I believe the RBGS mitigates MOI, before I was called away today.

dax .. yes, if a RBGS equalizes torque then a real MOI increase or decrease by changing mass position on the horizontal beam will be negated also - MOI is an indicator of how difficult it is to accelerate or decelerate a mass, with a higher MOI meaning it takes more effort to accelerate the object - for a RBGS the MOI is at the effective radius, which in this case is 1 meter where I = mr^2 - so IMO a RBGS with a mass on the beam in any position will have the same MOI.

In about the first few posts of this thread I said I noticed something unusual about the RBGS - where ever the mass was located on the horizontal didn't seem to effect the wheels MOI, in sim world !

I'll carry on ..

[Fletcher]

In the hangar & battery sim it was argued that the component vectors could not be added consecutively - the deduction being that reality was constrained by COE, & if we started with 100J's KE then we could not exceed this energy quotient, or momentum for that matter - adding back the previously wasted KE (75J's) did not contravene CoAM because it was argued that the mechanism to temporarily store & return the energy to the wheel was akin to adding external torque to the COR & therefore outside the definition of CoAM - the discussion for all intents & purposes ended at that point.

Another way to view it is that physics relationships are governed by symmetry, the threads that weave together the cloth of reality.

In the above example, it could be argued that the reason we can't consecutively add vector components is because symmetry won't allow us - if that is so what is that constraint ? - IMO, for the example given, it is Rotational Inertia (MOI) - IOW's when the mass of 2kg moved out to 2r & compressed a spring to store the energy then the MOI increased - at 1r I = mr^2 = 2 units - at 2r I = mr^2 = 8 units - so at the new larger radius it is 4 times harder, or takes 4 times as much effort, to accelerate a mass - notice that this is the reciprocal of the KE i.e. KE reduces to 1/4 while MOI increases by 4 times - this increased inertia quotient impacts our ability to consecutively add the vector components - so MOI symmetry has defeated us.

More to come ...

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

Hi Fletcher,

the beauty of the coat hanger experiment will be lost on a RBGs type of device, mainly because, "although they are in good balance they still require X amount of energy to rotate them against gearing friction" may I suggest you do a small RBGs model to see how much this is before you get to carried away.

The best use for the RBGs is to use the two middle gears each side of the static gear with Multi Lever systems mounted on them, tapping and using the multi leverage, the outer gears are used for counter balance weights to check the unwanted shift of the center of gravity on the multi lever systems.

Counter Balance Torque Generation is what the RBGs are best for.

Edit, + each side of the static gear.

[Fletcher]

Thanks Trevor - I appreciate that I haven't accounted for any frictions - I always deal in frictionless ideals first &, if something looks promising in sim land, add frictions in later as a system energy cost - at this stage it is still a concept idea & hypothetical arguments.

Will add more tomorrow.

[daxwc]

Make sense to me Fletcher I always said I thought torque, MOI and CF were somehow related, but mentally I couldn’t string them together they were just formulas. Not saying most academic physicists didn’t know how they were arrived at.
I believe we are headed down the lane of time, momentum but I am probably wrong. Well let’s have the final thrust of why the RBGS still turns to the right.


Ahhh…. The inner wheel has lower MOI then the wheel actually is and on flail contact breaks symmetry.

[Fletcher]

Hey dax .. like your thinking.

Just a final thought to air before I pack it in for the night.

In the hangar & battery sim, where masses move outwards on the radial, we get a double hit penalty - first, we lose 3/4 the KE - second, we increase MOI so that it's 4 times harder to accelerate the wheel - & we know what result this gives us for adding vectors.

In the RBGS variation seen in the Motion Wheel concept we get only one penalty - we still lose KE (because that's dictated by the geometry & right angle triangle argument) but we don't get penalised a second time with an increase in system MOI, IMO.

Later ..

[Fletcher]

In the RBGS variation seen in the Motion Wheel concept we get only one penalty - we still lose KE (because that's dictated by the geometry & right angle triangle argument) but we don't get penalised a second time with an increase in system MOI, IMO.

And it's not really a penalty because we are going to add back that energy into the rotation of the system.

................

So, if we want an outcome that confirms COE then we ignore MOI contribution to the system.

................

If we want an outcome that increases system KE & momentum then we need a mechanism that mitigates normal system MOI constraints & inherent symmetries, always found in other mechanical arrangements.

The RBGS is a prime candidate for that mechanism IMO, & is the basis of my Prime Mover theory & self accelerating & self sustaining Motion Wheel hypothesis.

[triplock]

Fletcher
Setting aside your applaud able use of the correct scientific terms, where does the energy come from to perpetuate the motion.

I accept you have an energy exchange at the point of contact, and the RB is PE neutral , but less system losses, what tops the energy tank back up ?

I see rotation is imparted at the rim, which produces a torque. Ok fair enough. What does that torque then drive ?

Chris

[Fletcher]

I think you should read the last few posts on this page Chris.

If I could definitively answer where the excess energy came from then I would be a professional physicist & mathematician & not an amateur armchair theorist - any excess energy or momentum can't be defined by current theory & laws, simply because symmetries don't allow it.

As I said all thru this thread if the inherent symmetries can be mitigated then the rules change & new outcomes become possible & perhaps even plausible.

[triplock]

Fletcher
Saying where the excess energy comes from should be easy to do, even without any scientific laws governing that outcome.

What I mean by that is your hypothesis just a leap of faith that makes A+B=C or does it have foundation.

I hope that you don't mind being under scrutiny from an idiot like me. By asking, I also learn.

So the net torque to rim, after transference , does what ? Turns the RB, laterally slides the mass , spins up flail ? Basically, list what you're asking the outer rim to accomplish with x amount of energy , even if just overcoming friction . You then can see what you have in each hand. I think it's a wash, although an ingenious wash.

Thanks mate

[triplock]

Fletcher

I tend to look at your design in the following manner:

Central to it is the Roberval Balance. As you know it, as a system, is gravity equalized. It neither gives or taketh away.

In that regard it negates the classic height for width argument. But for all intents and purposes , because of its neutrality, for the purposes of energy production / consumption evaluation it can be discounted.

Therefore we are left with the premise that the centripetal force acting on a mass can , in essence, have that energy redirected to the rim and for that imparted momentum to feed back to the flail et infinitum ?

Do you not see that kinetic energy is taking a hit each time to the point where initial impulse energy will be dissipated . Even if the transfer of CF was idealized , frictional and air resistance loses would wind it down.

You have energy transfer and dissipation ,not energy creation.

Can you counter that ?

Chris

[Fletcher]

Fletcher
Saying where the excess energy comes from should be easy to do, even without any scientific laws governing that outcome.

No, it isn't easy to do at all - in fact it's impossible to do, using current physics & the laws that govern their mathematical expression - everything folds back in on itself & intertwines with no known loopholes to exploit.

If you think it is easy, "even without (using) any scientific laws governing that outcome" then apply that reasoning to your own designs including any that purportedly use weight imbalance to sustain rotation - the laws do not allow it, & the math expressions of those laws don't have any wiggle room, unless you can demonstrate a symmetry break to drive the bus thru.

What I mean by that is your hypothesis just a leap of faith that makes A+B=C or does it have foundation.

I hope that you don't mind being under scrutiny from an idiot like me. By asking, I also learn.

Actually I'm saying the current laws say A + B = C - I'm also saying that in order to get excess KE & momentum then the above equation is invalid & a new one must be substituted.

The foundation I'm am using is sim results for a RBGS - in my case I built half RBGS's in pendulum form (see previous posts) - gravity caused the pendulum to fall & accelerate etc - regardless of where the mass on the horizontal beam was located (i.e. how far from the COR) the swing period remained identical, which means that the pendulum MOI was unchanged.

I.E. the RBGS is a torque equalizing mechanism AND mitigates the effects of mass placement distance form COR effecting the MOI of the RBGS, as compared to other mechanical arrangements.

So the net torque to rim, after transference , does what ?

Turns the RB, Yes laterally slides the mass Yes , spins up flail Yes ? Basically, list what you're asking the outer rim to accomplish with x amount of energy , even if just overcoming friction. You then can see what you have in each hand. I think it's a wash, although an ingenious wash.

Thanks mate

And therein lies the problem of understanding Chris - it is not constrained by the COE laws, so I have little interest in how much energy it starts with, just how much it has at the end - you've heard the saying "it's not the destination but the journey that's important" - that applies here - by following steps, of which one involves the use of a MOI mitigating mechanism, then it appears possible to break the entanglement of symmetry which ordinarily limits us to the COE outcome you speak of.

IOW's it seems hypothetically plausible to consecutively add the componet vectors to some degree, or to put it another way, to gain more momentum transfer (& system KE gain) from parts interacting than has previously been thought possible.

That's the theory - do you own experiments with the RBGS to test the foundations.

[Fletcher]

Fletcher

I tend to look at your design in the following manner:

Central to it is the Roberval Balance. As you know it, as a system, is gravity equalized. It neither gives or taketh away.

In that regard it negates the classic height for width argument. But for all intents and purposes , because of its neutrality, for the purposes of energy production / consumption evaluation it can be discounted.

Therefore we are left with the premise that the centripetal force acting on a mass can , in essence, have that energy redirected to the rim and for that imparted momentum to feed back to the flail et infinitum ?

Do you not see that kinetic energy is taking a hit each time to the point where initial impulse energy will be dissipated . Even if the transfer of CF was idealized , frictional and air resistance loses would wind it down.

You have energy transfer and dissipation ,not energy creation.

Can you counter that ?

Chris

Please go back & read the posts about the hangar & batteries experiment & sims - we have CoAM & we lose plenty of energy at the rim - it is possible to conserve that energy & reintroduce it to the system again to cause rotation - but if we have a mass at 1r with 100J's KE we will never get that mass at the greater radius (2r) with more tangential momentum & greater than the original 100J's KE (forget about friction losses).

That is because whilst we can mathematically separate out the component vectors from the resultant vector when we try to use the previously wasted component it's effectiveness is reduced by the substantial increase in the new system MOI (that is the trade-off & the system constraint, which always limits us to COE outcomes).

If MOI is no longer a trade-off then possibilities arise.

[triplock]

Fletcher

I applaud your resolution and confidence in your design. In some ways your answer have validated my own approach.

I think I have exhausted RB design variants over the years. Although quirky , their neutrality is self-limiting . As such I don't think they play an active part in any successful design, although I could be very wrong .

Chris.

PS it is always a good thing to have a pessimist look at matters ( as someone very clever said to me once )

[triplock]

Fletcher
Tomorrow, if I may, I'll ask about the flail / rim interaction. This is a bit of a volatile area as force transfer quantity is dependent on the relative speeds at the point of contact.

The flail seems to be a very brutal approach. If using a flail , then I may as well use a circle. If using a circle, you may as well use a slip gear.

As a guide fletcher, in percentage terms, how much of the flail energy is given to the rim ? Is there an equal and opposite reaction at the point of contact or engagement ?

Chris