Toad Elevating Moment

[MrVibrating]

Found an error in that last sim; a gear that should've been set to 4 was set to 3.990 instead, and that was the reason the outer weights were rotating disproportionately to the inner ones. After correcting this, the system is still unstable, however liable to rotate in either direction, which kind of undermines the suggestion of an uncancelled torque component.

I need to devise a definitive test of the hypothesis here, i think, as it's getting a little complicated..

[ruggerodk]

Hmm... just got to the bit where i'm fixing the parallelogram to the stand, and it suddenly struck me that i can't actually model what Bessler's done here, because the beams pass through the stand - i mention it because while it's irrelevant to the apparent operation of the mechanism, it still seems an unnecessary over-complication.

So why would the beams pass through the width of the stand, rather than being fixed to its face? It makes no difference to the mechanism as shown, hence there's another reason for it.

Either its a mere absent-minded over-extravagance, or this type of pass-through was on his mind for more practical purposes. We're immediately reminded of his descriptions of his axle, no - with its many holes and compartments..?

Consider the stand as a spindle axle...and spin the whole app.
CF will turn the geared arms to an outer position.
And not much force to turn them back to inner position, as each pair are balanced.

regards
ruggero ;-)

[MrVibrating]

Very interesting results this evening...


Been busy with other stuff last few weeks, but got back into WM2D tonight and tried something i've had in mind for a while...

So check it out; i can make a weight lift itself!

Yes, you read that right - there's only one weight in the system; this single mass is both input and output , depending on how you look at it.

The weight performs rotary work upon the system (ie. it torques the wheel).

As a result of this torque, the weight is wound upwards on a spool.

The weight start out low, then pulls itself upwards. All the work is done - the system's PE is exhausted - when the weight reaches the top of its travel.

In other words, the system is powered by negative PE - the available energy is limited only by how high the weight is allowed to lift itself.

How subversive is that, eh? It's EVIL! bwahaha!

Despite this scurrilous deviance, it's only half a closed loop mechanism - the weight will need to detach, and then perform further separate work on its descent, via another mechanism i haven't yet done any work on. However, given the bare facts above, it's gotta be, literally, all downhill from here..

So what the devil am i up to?

I was inspired by the Weisenstein illustrations - as you'll recall, therein the rope goes under a small wheel, then up out of the window, and around another small wheel (ie. they're pulleys), from which the weight is suspended.

I also took inspiration from the illustration of Wagner's roasting spit - in fact i've re-used the same hanging pendulum principle from my most recent experiments, above. "Pendulum" is a bit of a misnomer here since its job isn't to swing, but to remain stationary - ie. it's more of an anchor, or, more to the point, a stator... albeit one that can be hidden inside the wheel, thus fulfilling the outward appearance of his 'peritrochium'.





For those without WM2D, here's a simple description of the mechanism thus far:

- wheel with central axis

- pulley at 3 o'clock.

- spool centered on the axle

- heavy anchor (stator) hanging from the axle

- a small wheel on this anchor

- a chain and sprocket (or equivalent) connects the main wheel to the stator wheel

- another similar transmission connects the stator wheel to the spool

- finally, a rope or chain connects to the spool, goes around the pulley at 3 o'clock, and from its other end hangs a weight


Result:

- the point of application of the weight is the pulley at 3 o'clock

- this produces an OB torque; the wheel complies

- this rotation winds up the spool, via the stator transmissions

- by selecting appropriate gearing ratios, the weight can be made to rise, or allowed to descend, as the pulley makes its way down to 6 o'clock, at which point the system's PE is spent

If the spool is higher-geared the weight rises; lower, and it descends. Obviously, only the former condition interests us - suffice to say it seems an obscene perversion.. whichever way you break it down, the net result is that the weight lifts itself, since it's ultimately the weight causing the OB, not the pulley.

The system's PE falls with the pulley, not with the mass. On the contrary, the mass causing it all actually rises. Quite a long way, too.





I'm going to bed now - gotta lotta Hail Mary's to say i think... I'll try do some work on the reciprocal mechanism later this w/e..

[MrVibrating]

Drat, another false alarm... it was the pulley's weight doing the lift (duh).

Tried counterbalancing it with an identical mass at 9 o'clock - with the inevitable result; at best we can get some work out just from dropping the slack, but however i adjust the spool ratio (formerly 1.5) the weight can barely rise a few mm...

I'll finish thrashing it out tomorrow... but i think that's basically wrapped it...

[Furcurequs]

It's nice seeing something a bit different for a change, but I have to admit I was a bit worried there for a moment. ...only because I still have some three plus year old ideas of my own, of course, that I've still not been able to adequately put to the test and you sounded so sure of yourself.

Anyway, after your previous post, I couldn't help but wonder if maybe you actually did/do have something there and whether or not it perhaps had any similarities to my own unshared and not fully tested stuff.

...but... ...well... ...whew... ...lol

You did get me thinking about downloading WINE again for my Linux box so I could perhaps run your simulation myself, for after my initial "OH NO!" response that you'd beaten us to an answer, I quickly came back down to earth and decided that most likely you'd just made some sort of mistake - like the one you just 'fessed to.

Thanks for coming clean so quickly. ...and, wow, it's times like this that I realize just how much of a competitive side I have to myself - even though it's been a bit dormant while I've been dealing with my health issues.

Yours is an interesting idea. Good luck hashing it out.

Take care.

Dwayne

[MrVibrating]

Three years!? Honestly mate, by fair means or foul, get yourself a copy of WM2D. Even in the best of health, WE'RE ALL DYING! And this is hardly a boom industry.. we could be a dying breed. If anyone's gonna crack this, it's far more likely to be someone who's spent as long as Bessler on it than some dizzy noob (like me, ahem)..

I apologise for my rash over-excitement, bad form.. i should've learnt by now. In retrospect perhaps having toyed with this idea for some months before actually trying it added too much momentum to my enthusiasm.. all that pent-up confirmation bias... sounds like you know what i'm talking 'bout... ;)


This afternoon i confirmed it's just an elaborate lever. The underlying idea, of 'dropping' a kink rather than a weight, may yet have merit, but if so it isn't to be found in this embodiment..

But i've no shortage of other ideas to try, so don't be getting too complacent! Clock's ticking, tick tock tick tock...

[MrVibrating]

I think i'm through with stators - it was only ever a fleeting foray; Bessler emphatically denied using them, and i believe him. I still reserve judgement that there may be an effective 'stator' to be had from a transient alignment to gravity in a rotating frame, but Bessler insisted it's imperative that "everything must go around together" so i intend to stick to that dictum.

Also, i think i may have eliminated the possibility of dropping the point of application of a weight rather than the weight itself. The (repeated) lesson of the above experiments are that if the weight cannot physically get lower, no useful work can be done, and further that the amount of work that can be done remains limited to the drop height.



I intend instead to revisit the ideas that led me to start this thread - i'm now convinced that gravitational displacements alone are a futile dead end, and that there HAS to be another force/distance work component that isn't gravity-dependent. There's simply no other alternative that i can see.

Springs or similar PE stores are likewise useless if they're dependent on gravitational interactions.

The most obvious alternative energy form then is inertial workloads / fictitious forces.. there must be some way of causing a gainful interplay of two different forms of work, or perhaps retracting a centrifugally-motivated mass in a way a gravitating one cannot.

Some more thoughts on how this may apply:

- the self-starting wheels imply that the form of output work in these models was indeed GPE

- therefore the input work must be of another kind - ie. CF or somesuch

- the bi-directional wheels would not start unless a threshold input energy was exceeded - this suggests an inversion of that previous dynamic - either the output work was centrifugal, and the input gravitational, or CF was required to initiate the GPE interaction, and also to retract it.

So that seems like fertile enough ground for further hypothesizing.. onwards and upwards (or at least sideways a bit)!

[ruggerodk]

MrV:
I like the way you're thinking ;-)
Start up of the bi-directional wheel could be initiated by a push/pull mecanism similar to a seat belt centrifugal clutch...?
And freewheeling at very low rotation speed, as demonstrated by JB.

ruggero ;-)

[MrVibrating]

I don't know mate, but i'm gonna try and come up with a simple mechanism where a GPE input generates some other form of output.

I just don't know what, or how, yet... i'm sure i'll think of something though....

[Furcurequs]

Three years!? Honestly mate, by fair means or foul, get yourself a copy of WM2D. Even in the best of health, WE'RE ALL DYING! And this is hardly a boom industry.. we could be a dying breed. If anyone's gonna crack this, it's far more likely to be someone who's spent as long as Bessler on it than some dizzy noob (like me, ahem)..

I apologise for my rash over-excitement, bad form.. i should've learnt by now. In retrospect perhaps having toyed with this idea for some months before actually trying it added too much momentum to my enthusiasm.. all that pent-up confirmation bias... sounds like you know what i'm talking 'bout... ;)


This afternoon i confirmed it's just an elaborate lever. The underlying idea, of 'dropping' a kink rather than a weight, may yet have merit, but if so it isn't to be found in this embodiment..

But i've no shortage of other ideas to try, so don't be getting too complacent! Clock's ticking, tick tock tick tock...

Wait! ...maybe I shouldn't be wasting my time with this stuff at all and just get back to my 10 plus year old magnet device idea instead?! ;)

I hear you, though. I have played around a bit with some other 2D and even 3D physics programs, but some of the mechanisms in my device might be about as hard to model in a simulation as in a real world device. So, I've decided to just try to force myself to build rather than do computer simulations when I'm able.

My older (potentially) gravity propelled device idea is one that I really believe needs to be tested (since it seems to involve something that had me scratching my head decades ago when I noticed it in a picture in a physics book) and so I'm currently on my fourth build attempt with it. I began the other builds without first fully thrashing out all the details of their design - and so when I ran into major snags I opted for redesigns and rebuilds rather than to try to salvage them. All my attempts are in trying to design around the same basic principle, however, which in itself is probably not really that complex.

...but as they say, the devil is in the details. So, my current build attempt is probably the most complex device I've ever constructed - even if it is just made of poster board and tongue depressor craft sticks and nails and lengths of soft poplar wood and the like.

For this design to even have a remote chance of working, lots of different mechanisms have to do their thing repetitively and reliably. In other words, I really don't think there is a simple undeniable proof of principle without all the interconnectedness and complexity.

Well, I do have a very different design now, though, that sort of still uses the same basic principle but which might possibly be achieved with but a single combination of mechanisms. Because of this, building it has received more of my attention as of late.

I'm both blessed and cursed with having a very creative side. More ideas than I know how to handle. I was hoping to one day have a setup similar to Edison's - where I could just have others build my ideas for me - or at least try to have enough money to farm some of the building out to others. ...even despite my own inherent desire to do everything myself.

These days, though, I don't seem to have the health - and thus the functional time - or the money to get much done. So, it's a matter of priority - and it's not always easy to make the building of something that's believed to be impossible the priority over going out to get my groceries or other important though seemingly mundane things.

Anyway, no need for apologies, I understand the excitement of the initial inspirations and even the occasional mistaken belief that you've perhaps seen some actual validation.

It's a fine line we must tread, though. If we are to see the modeling, simulations, builds and tests to completion so that we can actually have real evidence to either validate or invalidate our ideas, we have to try to maintain some optimism but at the same time not talk ourselves - or others - into believing we actually have "the answer" before we truly know that we do.

The latter I believe is a step toward delusion and a step that gets some people here into trouble - even with their own "peers". ...lol

Trying to convince others that one truly has the answer before he's seen something of his own truly running in front of his own eyes is not a very wise idea. ...as some here have recently found out, for even here unsubstantiated claims are going to be challenged.

I personally try to give people a wide berth when it comes to their own speculative ideas for I feel it is for them to investigate and learn from their mistakes or maybe even bask in their success if they are fortunate, of course, but I admit even I will take a stand when I see someone trying to deny accepted physics - or defend a misunderstanding of basic physics - when their own devices are fully explained by accepted physics.

Well, I've let another day or two tick away without really getting anything much done.

Sorry this idea of yours didn't pan out. Good luck with the others.

Dwayne

[MrVibrating]

Cheers mate, and likewise, crossing all digits for you.. FWIW i agree tongue depressor sticks (i use coffee stirrers) are a versatile and much under-appreciated technology. Probably.


Anyhoos, i found an alternative workload to mix it up with some GPE interactions; it's simply angular inertia, such as that of a clock hand, or pendulum. No idea what to do with it or how, yet, but this is the first time it's occurred to me as a potentially functional element..

Spent a little while last night considering weights on the ends of leaf springs, a la MT18 - interesting because the system could move before the weight realises what's happening and catches up, but i can't yet see any energy asymmetry in it... give it a week or two and it'll probably end up on the pile with all the other failures tho..

[MrVibrating]

Well it's a year ago today that i began a concerted effort to crack this, and while i'm unable to mark the occassion with any breakthroughs, yet, looking back at the things i've considered this year, there's one particular config that i didn't disprove:

- nutation against CF, generating precessional torque that causes more CF

I need a flywheel rig to test the question - it requires 3D motion so i can't sim it in WM2D. Will have to get round to this...


Just to recap on what "nutation against CF" means:

- a flywheel spins at the end of a horizontal axle, the opposite end of which rests on a support. There's nothing supporting the flywheel against gravity, however the wheel's spin converts the downward displacement due to gravity into the orthogonal plane, hence the flywheel + axle 'falls' in the radial plane, rotating about its support - ie. it generates precessional torque. This can be seen in various YT vids, ie. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ty9QSiVC2g0

- So... what if we were to replace the gravitational force in the above example, with centrifugal force instead? In other words, instead of using nutation against gravity to generate precessional torque, suppose we re-configure the system to nutate against CF instead?

The resulting precessional torque thus generates more CF!

The higher the CF, the stronger we can nutate against it, the greater the precessional torque, and thus the higher the CF again. It's a closed feedback loop.

Consider that Bessler wrote that his great treatise on machines charted the evolution of his invention... MT culminates in CF experiments... there's repeated allusions to precessional torque from MT58 onwards, with the final one being MT136, unless we also count the whistling top on the Toys Page..

Yet the final innovation in such an evolution would be to re-orient the precessing flywheel into the orthogonal plane, so that it nutates outwards radially, under CF, rather than downwards under gravity. This means the flyweights need to be in the axial plane, which MT doesn't seem to cover... perhaps this last step was "buried or burned, due to the arrest"..? Unless of course we count the very final picture, MT 143 - "pounds in equillibrium" (JC has expressed doubt this is indeed part of MT)... it would be very convieniently consistent with this line of reasoning though..!

However, there IS one place this last step is perhaps more explicitly alluded to, and it's not in MT, but in all the other illustrations - the Weissenstein prints, for example:

- a consistent interpretation between all of them is that they're hiding an axially precessing flywheel in plain sight - the large wheel depicted is NOT Bessler's wheel, but rather the axial flywheel inside it.

The entire room in which these wheels are depicted, would represent the wheel itself - the entire rooms rotate freely, as if mounted on balanced axles. This could solve the left-hand side occlusion error, where the entire apparatus is implied to be suspended from a bearing and bracket fixed to the left wall of the room.

The posts likewise represent the two facias of the actual wheel, and thus the orientation of the flywheels within.

The flywheels can of course be dogbone-shaped - hence the pair of weights on its ends would be swapping inner / outer positions as it span axially.

Although they can also be cross-shaped, too... he draws a fair few of each example i think, as well as circular ones.

But something else he draws a lot of in MT is abstract, sometimes fantastical, closed feedback loops. For example, an inclined waterwheel drives a flywheel while also raising water via a screw pump which in turn also drives the waterwheel and attached flywheel.... i forget which plates that is but you know the ones i mean, etc. etc..

So a test rig of this hypothesis could be described very simply in terms of holding a vertical flywheel at arms length, and then twisting your wrist, tilting the wheel left and right, while doing a big 'windmill' rotation of your arm (like this). The resulting nutation against CF should thus cause a torque or anti-torque in the direction of your arm's rotation, depending on the direction of twist by your wrist. If you see what i mean (i take no responsibility for any injuries caused by actually trying this).

So it needs a fairly complex test rig, which would be pretty much a complete wheel if it proved sucessful.

Unless anyone can think of a loss mechanism that might break the conjectured feedback loop (again, CF + axial nutation = axial torque = CF)..? I mean what could possibly go wrong there?

[ruggerodk]

- something to start the spinning?

[MrVibrating]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GeyDf4ooPdo

This replication of Eric Laithwaite's famous demonstraion also nicely illustrates the general dynamic - just as the flywheel's impetus to tilt against gravity is converted into precessional torque about his axis, likewise the upward force he applies to the opposite end of the shaft as he lifts it up and over his head also applies an axial tilt - and so this upwards force also boosts precessional torque..

Tantalizingly, the followup analysis of this experiment never considers the work performed during the lift - the conclusion that it "made the effective weight seem lighter" tallies with the absence of response from the scales during the lift, which we'd expect to register greater weight during the lift... we DO see such a response when he drops it then stabilises it again, just no corresponding counter-force during the actual lift..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tLMpdBjA2SU

Granted that it takes energy to spin up the flywheel, if this really does reduce the effective weight, or more to the point, the net workload, of raising a mass, then that looks a lot like the basis of a symmetry break...

[MrVibrating]

- something to start the spinning?

Of course this requires juice, however it's supposed to be conserved, innit?

So if there IS an effective reduction in lift work (and i'm just talking about Laithwaite's stuff here, not my prospective nutation-CF feedback loop), then net mechanical conservation would require a failure of conservation of AM (and some folks consider CoM to be more fundamental than CoE)... IOW, the lift would only be subsidised at the expense of AM, and the wheel would decelerate in direct linear proportion to the height it is raised... presumably then accelerating again when lowered..(?)

So yep, spinning up costs energy, but the point is that from thereon, input and output energy could be decoupled...

For instance consider this cycle; spin up, lift light, transfer RKE to another storage medium, drop the now-heavier not-spinning mass, return its RKE from 2nd flywheel, regenerative brake system or whatever, pocket the difference, rinse and repeat. It'd be shooting fish in a barrel. A shotgun barrel at that. You'd probably have to grease 'em up then maybe blow them down the barrel with your mouth first, but point is you wouldn't be able to miss.. I mean, unless the gun backfired or something. Even then though the fish would probably be properly messed up - shell-shocked at least. And all greasy.

I think you get my point tho...