What does 'something that works' mean?

[Ed]

Gravity can't be put to use to rotate a PM wheel because it is a conservative force. The energy provided by gravity as a weight falls is exactly the same energy needed to raise the weight back upward so that it can fall again. This is the meaning of conservative.

Jim, I may have missed this, but please tell me if you believe CF or momentum are non-conservative forces? Please separate the force from your "method, principle, means" before you give your answer. We're just talking about forces for now. Thanks.

[jim_mich]

Jim, I may have missed this, but please tell me if you believe CF or momentum are non-conservative forces? Please separate the force from your "method, principle, means" before you give your answer. We're just talking about forces for now. Thanks.

Long version or short version?

Long version:

Unlike simple conservative gravity, the answer to your question, Ed, is somewhat complex.

First off, though CF is a subset of momentum, the two are somewhat different. This makes the answers different for CF versus momentum.

Momentum is usually assumed to be straight line momentum or simple rotational solid flywheel momentum. In such cases, the energy put into an objects so as to overcome inertia and thus cause motion is exactly the same energy that is given back by the object in the form of momentum force. Obviously there is always the disclaimer that friction is involved.

CF is caused by momentum of an object that is forced by its circumstances to follow a curved path. The momentum of the object is conservative. Such an object must be accelerated and decelerated the same as any flywheel.

CF is more complex. It is a force. It is not momentum. But it is caused by momentum. It is a force that varies significantly depending upon the situation involved. Velocity always has two components, which are speed and vector. Often vector is ignored and thus assumed to be straight line. But, regardless, velocity is always the two components of speed and vector.

Whenever an object changes velocity (speed or vector) then force is required. If an object has two force vectors that are acting to change the velocity of the object, then any object motion that results is the combination of the two vector forces.

Simple CF, when an object is fixed to its rotating environment, results in a balancing against centripetal force. A balancing of two force vectors.

Things get much more complex when objects move about within a rotating environment, especially when objects pass momentum back and forth between each other and the environment. In such cases, the objects gain momentum from other objects and from the rotating environment and also give momentum back to other objects and to the rotating environment. In such cases, according to Newton's Laws of motion, total momentum should always be conserved.

But the goal of PM seekers is for a gain of momentum, thus a gain of rotational motion force.

Kinetic energy is almost never conserved when multiple weights move about within a rotating environment. There is no conservation of KINETIC energy Law. There is conservation involving Thermodynamics where heat converts to motion and back to heat. But most all PM wheels are not heat engines.

Kinetic energy is not conserved inside a rotating environment. This is because you have two perspectives. One perspective is from outside looking inward. The other perspective is inside, riding the rotating environment. Natures Laws do not force KE or momentum to be the same when viewed from both perspectives.

After being initially rotated, weights riding inside a rotating wheel have zero momentum relative to the wheel. But should you allow CF to cause these weight to move inside the wheel, then the weights magically gain momentum and KE. So, from the perspective of inside the rotating wheel, momentum is not conservative.

So, should we claim that momentum and CF are conserved and thus conservative? It all depends upon the circumstances and perspective.

So far, I've not touched upon my "method, principle, means". And already CF and momentum are no longer conservative when viewed from inside a rotating environment. This is why some call such forces "fictitious". I prefer such a force be called a pseudo force, a d'Alembert force or my favorite, an inertial momentum force. Inertial force and it counter-partner momentum force do not exist until a counter-force is applied. And CF is simple the result of special circumstances where momentum is involved. And all involve changes of velocity (speed and/or vector).

That's all I can say.

[Ed]

Thanks for your answer, Jim. I'll contemplate what you've said here and see if I have any further questions that hopefully don't encroach on your "method, principle, means".

[Tarsier79]

The Conervation of energy laws apply to all energies. This has been explained before. It is you with your fingers in your ears yelling "no, no, no". Your design has to break this law to work.