Toad Elevating Moment

[murilo]

MrV,
look at what I found together to one of above links:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTY1Kje0yLg

( also shown in other thread.)

[MrVibrating]

Right chaps and chapesses, hold onto yer hemlines cos i've got a plan... and it's as hot as my pants!

To recap, i posed myself a question:

- and kind of dropped mass needs re-lifting, a fundamental point that seems to scupper all attempts to leverage a gravitational exploit.. hence, if the exploit is instead inertial (like centrifugal, say) then there must be some way of resetting a CF workload without having to re-lift it against CF..

And so now i've found it!

So, how do you get an output of RKE from CF without having to input the same amount of work retracting the mass back against a now-greater CF?

Conundrum, eh?

And the answer's SO simple you'll kick yourself:

- don't use radial excursions in the first place!

If the mass ISN'T flung outwards radially, it doesn't need drawing back in towards the center!

Instead, there's another means of converting CF into work... in the axial plane!

That's right, we can convert centrifugal force into torque, without using any radial excursion at all!!!

We can do this by leveraging nutation and precession!

I'm now more confident than ever that the resemblance of the Weissenstein prints (with all the pendulums and water screws etc.) is a deliberate red-herring, in order to hide in plain sight the actual driving mechanism within.

Each of these prints depicts two wheels, one in plan view, the other in profile. Ostensibly, they're alternate external views of the demonstration rigs, connected together merely for artistic whimsy.

However, what they actually show is, i believe, rotation of a flywheel in two planes - axially, as would be instantly anticipated, but also in the radial plane - like a coin spun on a tabletop.

Except, this coin is also rotating axially about its center, like a wheel.

Take a look at the following diagram:



(A) is the badly-drawn main hub of the wheel, its center the axis of rotation

(B) is a spoke that can rotate in the radial plane (as depicted by the arrow)

(C) is a flywheel, cross-shaped for reasons of confirmation bias, that exerts a precessional torque upon (B) when spun up and subjected to CF caused by rotation about (A)

You can probably now see where this is going (i know, probably nowhere, but bear with me)..

This design would seem to need a hanging stator, unfortunately, however it looks like we need something to push against, and who cares if it's concealed out of sight...

So, via suitable transmission systems, rotation about (A) drives a hi-gear rotation of (C), and this rotation about (A) also applies CF to the now-spinning (C).

The reaction of this CF with the angular momentum of (C) causes it to precess radially, applying radial torque to (B)

Finally, (B) drives rotation of (A) via a low-gear ratio.

Hence CF is converted into radial torque, applying RKE to the net system while sidestepping the dead-end honey-trap of a radial excursion under CF.

Normally, an output in the form of a radial excursion under CF would have to be followed up with an equal input, retracting it back towards the center, from the rim. And if that out-bound excursion increased the RKE, then the problem's made even worse; we have to retract the flung mass against an even greater force than it was initially impelled by. That route's thus an obvious hiding to nowhere.

But by converting centrifugal force into radial work about the spokes instead, we only ever have an output stroke from the system - any reciprocal input stroke is obviated. There's nothing to retract.

The faster the apparatus rotates about (A), the faster (C) is driven, and the more CF is applied to it. Hence the torque upon (B) is the product of a feedback loop - and from thereon, so are the other two torques on (A) and (C).

(A) drives (C) drives (B) drives (A). The whole thing accelerates up until losses equal the gain. All of the outputs that aren't dissipative losses are also inputs.

I'm getting some cheap gyroscopes over the weekend, to begin testing...

[MrVibrating]

MrV,
look at what I found together to one of above links:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTY1Kje0yLg

( also shown in other thread.)

Yep cool demo, albeit quite a common one.. sort of thing we see in the Xmass physics lectures here in Blighty..

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

I would suggest a simple torque test, on the man with a spinning wheel standing on a pivot, get a fishing scale and see how much it take to turn him around, and then see how much it takes to spin the wheel, then do a run down test, spin the wheel and let it spin the man, then just spin the wheel and see what the time different is.

It may be easer to just build it, if you can afford the parts, but do not forget the RPM's involved,

I must say its a good Idea though. (Edit, it is a wind down though IMO.)

To recap, i posed myself a question:

- and kind of dropped mass needs re-lifting, a fundamental point that seems to scupper all attempts to leverage a gravitational exploit.. hence, if the exploit is instead inertial (like centrifugal, say) then there must be some way of resetting a CF workload without having to re-lift it against CF..

And so now i've found it!

I do not agree with this quote for a number of reasons, the main reason is you should never lift weights only rotate them in a counterbalance, and still get your leverage torque.

[MrVibrating]

Rotating the weights in a counterbalance - without knowing what specifically you have in mind, generally i would expect that some kind of further rotation or counter-rotation would need to follow in order to reset them - the fundamental point is simply that spent GPE always needs repaying in kind, and the same usually applies to spent CF-PE... with the present case being an apparent exception. If you've found an alternative get-out clause however then you already know better than me..!

And yes run down tests will be a good measure if the concept survives that far... i think i'll start by attaching a manually-spun gyroscope to a Mecanno armature and seeing if i can even get the gyro to precess stably under CF. Can't help thinking gravity might get in the way here, but minimising its interference would seem to require a horizontal wheel instead, which would strongly suggest i'm going off-piste.. maybe... we'll have to see. Will update accordingly..

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

Hi,

I do know lots of things that only a few builder may have seen, I do not stop experimenting, there is no such thing as empirical tested as science would have you believe, science seem to stop a lot of experiment short of contradicting how they have everything worked out and the maths accounts balanced.

This is the sort of thing I find irritating, I was watching a experiment with a guy spinning a 19kg weight on the end of a 1m lever, why he did not do another experiment at the same time with a 2m bar with to weights spinning in the same direction and then try spinning the weights in opposite directions to see what the out come would be, they never seem to finish anything and nail down what is really going on, what a waste of a opportunity.

I will show you all what I mean about rotating levers to gain leverage with very little side effects when I take some more videos and finish building the spinoffs, I already have videos of some experiments that are a direct conflict of science thinking, but for now you will have to take it with a pinch of salt until I show all, I nearly posted some videos last year but I am glad I did not all though I did feel pressured into showing them, a year later I look at them again and could see something I had missed because at the time I was looking for something else.

Keep up the good work and I am glad to see you experimenting and using your creative side, a open mind is always a good thing and seem to be in short supply here.

[MrVibrating]

Thanks mate, and gyros on levers does sound interesting, lots of permutations to try... and you're right about hasty conclusions from half-finished experiments (Myth Busters do that sometimes, really annoying!).. I'm guessing you might be looking for an uncancelled linear counter force from two contra-rotating gyros, or something along those lines, to subsidise a lift? If that's close then say no more, you've already got me on-side..! I'll be keeping an eye out for your results...

As for my idea, came home from work tonight with two crappy Hamley's gyroscopes, £8 each, and a Powerball... just for fun. Early indications are that the precessionary torque is much more substantial than i'd dared hoped for, but also that this precession increases the bearing friction a little..

I was hoping to establish whether or not work done by the precessionary torque subtracts from the gyro's RKE, but this friction spike muddies the issue somewhat... One would expect tho that even if we had notionally friction-free gyro bearings, there would still have to be an RKE cost or else any work done by the precession would be free.. or at least, thermodynamically decoupled from the gyro's RKE..

So there's an obvious set of wind-down tests to perform: unloaded vs loaded precession - does the gyro slow quicker when the precession performs useful work..?

I'll aim to answer this before the weekend's out..

[zoelra]

MrVibrating,

Your idea looks similar to the Laithwaite gyroscopic effect. You might find this very interesting. The man is holding a steel rod with a spinning 40lb weight (your C) on the end. By turning around (your B movement) he is able to easily lift the weight, or does the weight lift itself.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MHlAJ7vySC8

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

Hi MV,

Here is a simple experiment you can do now you have two gyros, get a pillow to catch them on, then spin one gyro and not the other then drop them and see if they land at the same time, also note if they both fall in a straight line. (Edit, play with the angles as well.)

Looks like you are going to have some fun with your new gyro buddies.

[MrVibrating]

@Zoelra

Yep cool demo, i've actually already referenced it a couple of times in this thread! The gyro is easier to lift because he accelerates the precession, swinging it sideways as he hoists it..

A gyro has a natural tendency to precess at a speed that keeps it horizontal as this minimizes the amount of work it does. If this speed is slowed (such as by applying a load to the precession, as i'm considering) then the gyro will fall lower as it precesses. Conversely, if its precessional speed is accelerated then it rises, as seen in Laithwaite's demonstration.

Presumably there's no way of exploiting this easy lift or else others would have found it already, however i'll keep it under consideration until i've fully understood why for myself - superficially it does look tantalizing..

@Trev

lol i was so skeptical i was tempted to just say i'd done the experiment anyway, however just on the off-chance, i've actually now done it - spun one up as fast as i could pull the ripchord, and dropped it alongside the unspun one. As you might've expected, no discernable difference, at least over the 4 ft or so i was able to drop them onto my bed!

Over a longer drop i'd expect the axles and brace to start counter-spinning due to bearing friction, eventually cancelling any net angular momentum.

If only things were so easy eh..




As for my experiments, more negative results i'm afraid... i realised that in order to use precessional torque to drive a load, the angle of precession would be caused to progressively drop (as explained above).

So i decided to see if freedom of movement in this nutating plane was a prerequisite for precession - if not then my idea was still go, and furthermore nutation would be eliminated as useful dynamic.

To this end i built a Mecanno test rig:



It's a horizontal rotor on roller bearings with a gyro in the precessing plane at one end, and a lead counter-weight at the other.. perfectly balanced by tipping the whole rig onto its side to make an effective vertical balance beam, and adjusting the position of the counterweight (which is just a cut strip of lead flashing).

Upon spinning up the gyro, nothing at all happens. Give the horizontal rotor a push in either direction and it coasts equally well to an eventual halt.

Conclusion: motion in the nutating plane is a prerequisite for precession - if the gyro isn't free to fall against gravity (even though we don't actually want it to) then no precession can arise.


Later i intend to perform the null hypothesis, and reconfigure the rig to allow the gyro to tip and nutate; presumably this will allow precession to manifest.

However this is a bit of a blow to the config i had in mind, as it increases the already-daunting complexity of the build... Will update as more results come in..

Incidentally, going back to the Toys Page, in light of my current thinking, (E) the sciccorjack would be a ripchord (high speed is about its most interesting or useful unique feature i think), (D) - the lower hammer toy - would be precessing gyros, and (C) - the upper hammer toy - would be a pair of non-spinning counter-weights to (D)... although where (A) and (B) fit in there would be anyone's guess..

Anyhoos, got (proper) work to do for now...

[MrVibrating]

Playing with the same rig, i find strong torque can be imparted by moving one end of the giro, while the other end is loosley fixed to the rig. Small progress, tho still nowhere near testing my hypothesis. I must say though it seems too unweildy and complex an arrangement as i've envisaged it, quite at odds with Karl's allusions to simplicity.

But i'm really warming to playing with these new forces - makes a refreshing change to dumb weights; these things have a mind of their own... moreover, this moves our weights outside the sphere of what i call simple 2D translations (something goes down, something else goes up, by whatever means) - here, we're moving little chunks of energy and force around, it's just so much richer in possibilities and dynamics... kewl stuff, and i'm increasingly confident angular momentum of the weights is a key principle to be playing with...

So, as a minor distraction from all this practical play, we're faced with the issue of how to impart this spin - preferably without the use of a stator - in a rotating frame.

We have another head-start on the initial conditions from the self-starting wheels: obviously the gyros couldn't be kept spinning when the machine was stopped and tied down, so the machine must've started on an OB torque - any other means of starting would've required a stator.

Hence this initial OB input provides enough energy to also spin up the gyro. Together with the fact that none of the witnesses described sounds consistent with a high-speed inner flywheel spinning up, we can conclude that there simply wouldn't be sufficient time or distance to impart a very high speed to any spinning parts.

As for potential mechanisms for applying spin, i can only think of two, really practical ones; dropping a mass off a spindle, or alternatively, dropping it with the spindle, like a yo-yo.

I'm wondering if anyone else has played with these principles much?

Another interesting clue to factor in is that Bessler's weights were hollow lead cylinders. Thus we might conclude that if it is these that are caused to spin, then their shape was chosen because a hollow cyclinder maximises the rotational inertia of a given mass - that is, a sphere, disc or solid cylinder would all have a lower rotational intertia than a hollow cyclinder of equal mass.

Thus by choosing hollow lead cylinders, Bessler has apparently optimised his weights to maximise their rotational inertia as far as is physically possible.

Lots of new factors there to consider - gyroscopic forces and respective workloads, rotational workloads (spin up / spin down), and also translational (where the spinning cylinders are applied as wheels, and the inside surface of the machine forms a track (or partial track)..

Still, how did the Gera wheel spin up an internal mass WITHOUT using a stator, from only an OB startup? I mean, if the weight had already fallen into the OB position, then some other falling mass, falling after the machine began turning, would've been required to initiate the spin. Perhaps this could've been a seperate, duplicate mechanism, allowing the machine to start mid-way through an interaction that didn't yet have a spinning component? Or was this third mass a part of the initally-OB mechanism - ie. either each discrete mechanism would then need three masses (the clover clue perhaps?) or else one complete mechanism comprising two masses is sufficiently OU to compensate for the non-spinning component at initial startup...

There's some good clues here i think... tubular flywheels especially would seem to be a very particular specification...

[ruggerodk]

MrVibrating wrote:

I'm wondering if anyone else has played with these principles much?

Yes!

regards
ruggero ;-)

[MrVibrating]

I've looked at yo-yo-ing over the last week - superficially attractive in that the weights might "climb back up to the center" by winding themselves up their spindles. I considered rolling the weights out radially then dragging them along the bottom of the wheel, like a 'rolling road' to allow them to pick up even more energy before climbing back up, but concluded this was still a zero-sum deal.

If Bessler's weights were tubular in order to maximise their rotational inertia, then it was for some other purpose...

I also considered the slower rolling acceleration of a tube, over a solid cylinder of equal mass, as a potential basis for a time-dependent break - perhaps causing a temporary imbalance while the hollow mass lagged the solid one... however i couldn't see much difference between this approach, vs simply dropping two solid masses with a delay.

I considered using them as precessing flywheights for a CF-to-torque couple - a fascinating possibility i still haven't fully fathomed yet, but which i think is probably too complex at least for my build abilities..

But today i spent a while considering something that's been in the back of my mind since Steorn - pure moments. A pure moment is an interesting kind of force couple, and very non-intuitive. You'll find plenty of good explanations online, but the one that first piqued my interest was this one from the SKDB.

As previously discussed in this thread, if the point of application of a weight can be borne on the 'wrong' side of the wheel - ie. on the opposite side to the weight's actual location - and furthermore if this feat can be manipulated at will, then a weight might effectively lift itself...

But a sketch is worth a thousand words:



The blue beam is rigid and freely pivots on the left of the wheel, thus the right end of the beam experiences a downwards force due to gravity. The red mass is rotating, applying a pure moment force couple equal and oposite to that downwards force.

Hence, in this configuration, is the point of application of the weight:

a) the pivot on the left side of the wheel, or

b) the location of the mass itself?

My intuition says it can't possibly be on the left, because that would be easy OU, but then pure moments and force couples are very unintuitive systems...


Edit: improved sketch:

[daanopperman]

Hi Mr V ,

If the bar is pivoted on the left side , the weight will need to be lifted as it is spun up to speed , once the weight is up to speed , the pivot does not matter anymore , it becomes solid connected to the wheel . If the 2 forces is equal , there will be no force to turn the wheel any way . If the forces is equal , and the wheel did turn , the bar would not be in the same orientation . If the forces is equal , you could just remove that equation from the drawing and just have a bar , what would turn the wheel .

[MrVibrating]

Like they say, very unintuitive all this...

So i did a WM2D model. One thing i should clarify at this point is that the pure moment is a torque - rather than an actual rotation per se, as i may have implied.



However presumably this torque can be applied either by accelerating something having a high rotational inertia, or equally, by decelerating it... which seems to perfectly fit with the defining characteristic of hollow lead cylinders; maximal rotational inertia.. and correpsonding counter-torque!

I love it when a plan comes together.. ;)

So i need to do a further test to see if this is possible - can rotational inertia produce an effective pure moment?

Will post results when i get 'em...