Part Three:
It seemed to me that the torque effect of the weights on the right side of the wheel would me more than the torque of the weights on the left side of the wheel.
So, I screwed some dummy weights onto a wheel at what I thought would be the right radii. The right hand side weights were farther away from the axle, the left hand side weights were closer to the axle.
The wheel appeared to have a significant amount of positive torque. It rotated to the right. Now all I had to do was mechanize the attaching/detaching.
So, I then started trying to think of mechanisms which would allow attaching and detaching. It became a bit of a challenge since I'm not much of a craftsman.
After a few weeks of spending a few spare hours here and there trying to make the right mechanisms, I was booted out of the workshop. So I decided to double check the measurements to see how much effect I should expect.
That's where I found I was in error.
How does this work?
Moderator: scott
re: How does this work?
Part Four:
Since I was dividing the circumference of the wheel into eight equal parts, and since the bottom of the rod/weight combination was composed of a semicircle, I had to find out how far the weight was rolling from the 4:00 position to the 6:00 position to properly place it on the wheel for when it was still connected to the outer radius pin. That would let me know how long the rod could be.
When the rod and weight combination are in the 6:00 position, in order to achieve a smooth transfer at the 12:00 position, the height of the weight rod combination must be divided into 2, the result which is where the location of the inner radius needs to be.
Once I had those measurements, I was able to build them in WM2D relatively accurately. That's when I found that I had erred in my physical model with the dummy weights. My inner radius was too far in and the rod wouldn't be long enough to reach the inner pin if its inner pin connection point was equidistant from the top and bottom of the rod/weight combo.
The first few times I tried to do this in WM2D, I had the rod measurements wrong, and it showed surplus torque when all the 360 degrees of the wheel were added together.
I double checked everything and found the error in my ways and have come to the conclusion that the constraint is the length of the rod.....the constraint coming from the division of the circumference of the wheel into the 8 sections. Perfect attachment, detachment, no friction would make this a balanced design....but balance isn't what we're looking for, is it.
Since discovering my error, I've gone through it again a few times and I'm still coming to the same conclusion....no surplus torque.
My hope is that the rod/pin shift at 12:00 or the weeble effect will be just the thing to put someone else's design over the top.
The failed idea is attached as a jpg.
Since I was dividing the circumference of the wheel into eight equal parts, and since the bottom of the rod/weight combination was composed of a semicircle, I had to find out how far the weight was rolling from the 4:00 position to the 6:00 position to properly place it on the wheel for when it was still connected to the outer radius pin. That would let me know how long the rod could be.
When the rod and weight combination are in the 6:00 position, in order to achieve a smooth transfer at the 12:00 position, the height of the weight rod combination must be divided into 2, the result which is where the location of the inner radius needs to be.
Once I had those measurements, I was able to build them in WM2D relatively accurately. That's when I found that I had erred in my physical model with the dummy weights. My inner radius was too far in and the rod wouldn't be long enough to reach the inner pin if its inner pin connection point was equidistant from the top and bottom of the rod/weight combo.
The first few times I tried to do this in WM2D, I had the rod measurements wrong, and it showed surplus torque when all the 360 degrees of the wheel were added together.
I double checked everything and found the error in my ways and have come to the conclusion that the constraint is the length of the rod.....the constraint coming from the division of the circumference of the wheel into the 8 sections. Perfect attachment, detachment, no friction would make this a balanced design....but balance isn't what we're looking for, is it.
Since discovering my error, I've gone through it again a few times and I'm still coming to the same conclusion....no surplus torque.
My hope is that the rod/pin shift at 12:00 or the weeble effect will be just the thing to put someone else's design over the top.
The failed idea is attached as a jpg.
- Attachments
-
re: How does this work?
FatSpidr, your idea is a beautiful example of trying to use weight to move weight. No matter what scheme is used, if you try to only use weight to lift weight, it fails. This is the reason that the scientific community (teachers, engineers, scientists, skeptics, JREF, etc.) consider the search for PM to be foolish and impossible.
A working wheel must use some dynamic method to lift weight in order to work. Such a dynamic method must extract or harness energy in some unusual manner. Simple moving, tilting, shifting of weights around the wheel will not work unless a method is used that adds energy to the moving and the shifting. Bessler said that in his wheel the weights gain energy from their swinging. This is the reason why I pursue the use of centripetal force.
A working wheel will both obey and break Newtonian Laws of Physics. All the formula concerning motion and energy will work and be accurate. But the law of conservation of energy will at first seem to be broken. Only upon very close analysis will it be discovered that momentum (the energy of motion) is not always conservative when two moving objects are involved. Science already knows this but just doesn't recognize it. The formula for kinetic energy clearly shows that when the speed of an object increases then the kinetic energy within the object increases even faster. A doubling of speed quadruples the kinetic energy. From where does this extra energy come from? We just need to tap into this extra energy of fast moving objects. How do you get a fast moving object on a slow wheel that is just starting to rotate? You make the weight swing, possibly helped along by springs.
But then you need to figure out how to extract some of this increased kinetic energy of fast swinging weights in order to unbalance the wheel! The simplest way to harness kinetic energy is by using swing speed to produce centripetal force. When a weight swings twice as fast then the CF quadruples. The down side is that the CF will be available for only half the time. This is why science thinks that everything balances out. You get four times the force for half the time so you get twice the energy out for twice the energy in. Conservation rules!
Or does it? We could all walk away right now thinking PM wheels are impossible if it weren't for John Collin's historical research indicating that Bessler's wheels actually worked and weren't fraudulent.
Bessler's secret shows itself in the kinetic energy and CF formulas. Remember that Bessler was also considered a mathematician. I think s'Gravesande upset Bessler by showing that Newton was wrong and that Kinetic Energy = mv^2 which clearly shows that faster swinging weights gain energy from their own swinging. s'Gravesande was way too close to the truth to suit Bessler.
A working wheel must use some dynamic method to lift weight in order to work. Such a dynamic method must extract or harness energy in some unusual manner. Simple moving, tilting, shifting of weights around the wheel will not work unless a method is used that adds energy to the moving and the shifting. Bessler said that in his wheel the weights gain energy from their swinging. This is the reason why I pursue the use of centripetal force.
A working wheel will both obey and break Newtonian Laws of Physics. All the formula concerning motion and energy will work and be accurate. But the law of conservation of energy will at first seem to be broken. Only upon very close analysis will it be discovered that momentum (the energy of motion) is not always conservative when two moving objects are involved. Science already knows this but just doesn't recognize it. The formula for kinetic energy clearly shows that when the speed of an object increases then the kinetic energy within the object increases even faster. A doubling of speed quadruples the kinetic energy. From where does this extra energy come from? We just need to tap into this extra energy of fast moving objects. How do you get a fast moving object on a slow wheel that is just starting to rotate? You make the weight swing, possibly helped along by springs.
But then you need to figure out how to extract some of this increased kinetic energy of fast swinging weights in order to unbalance the wheel! The simplest way to harness kinetic energy is by using swing speed to produce centripetal force. When a weight swings twice as fast then the CF quadruples. The down side is that the CF will be available for only half the time. This is why science thinks that everything balances out. You get four times the force for half the time so you get twice the energy out for twice the energy in. Conservation rules!
Or does it? We could all walk away right now thinking PM wheels are impossible if it weren't for John Collin's historical research indicating that Bessler's wheels actually worked and weren't fraudulent.
Bessler's secret shows itself in the kinetic energy and CF formulas. Remember that Bessler was also considered a mathematician. I think s'Gravesande upset Bessler by showing that Newton was wrong and that Kinetic Energy = mv^2 which clearly shows that faster swinging weights gain energy from their own swinging. s'Gravesande was way too close to the truth to suit Bessler.
re: How does this work?
Nice post Jim, you summed up things very well, and I like what you said here:
GrahamA working wheel will both obey and break Newtonian Laws of Physics
re: How does this work?
Jim, you say 'But then you need to figure out how to extract some of this increased kinetic energy of fast swinging weights in order to unbalance the wheel!' Bessler mentions hammer blows/impact/(material properties) is it possible to use impact in some useful or novel way to extract this energy? (maybe alternate hammer blows on the 'anvil' causing it to jump back and forth on the notched beam of the 'hammer toy' causing shifting of the parallelogram? or 'extracting' utilizing the jacobs ladder principal? no idea how lol) and would it give what we need?
I have also puzzled on the initial start phase of the wheel, I'm sure there are clues there beyond my understanding, reports of one wheel say a small degree of rotation causes a noise/bang/impact and it takes off from there with sucessive bangs and increasing speed. At start, I can envisage something extending (storks bill?) or something highly geared like a small flywheel(unbalanced slightly?) that can attain several rpm from a few inches of overall wheel rotation, or something unlatching ,,,,plenty of options there then.... I guess you would need several mechs(8 pairs?) radially to start the wheel with little rotation, if only 4 mechs a greater degree of initial rotaion would be re'd. (quarter rotation) ?
just musings...as much for my benefit as anyone elses.
Regards
Jon
I have also puzzled on the initial start phase of the wheel, I'm sure there are clues there beyond my understanding, reports of one wheel say a small degree of rotation causes a noise/bang/impact and it takes off from there with sucessive bangs and increasing speed. At start, I can envisage something extending (storks bill?) or something highly geared like a small flywheel(unbalanced slightly?) that can attain several rpm from a few inches of overall wheel rotation, or something unlatching ,,,,plenty of options there then.... I guess you would need several mechs(8 pairs?) radially to start the wheel with little rotation, if only 4 mechs a greater degree of initial rotaion would be re'd. (quarter rotation) ?
just musings...as much for my benefit as anyone elses.
Regards
Jon
re: How does this work?
Jon, I try to never totally rule out any possibility. There might be some quirk or twist that makes something do the unexpected, but I don't see anything in having hammers strike blows and jump around.
Four mechanisms will cause a swing every 1/8 rotation of the wheel. The mech's swing one way then half rotation later they swing back. Net result is 8 swings per rotation. I think the early wheels used only 3 mech's. This is when the "and still you don't understand" symbol was published, so the three pie wedges represent the three mech's with six swings per rotation.
Four mechanisms will cause a swing every 1/8 rotation of the wheel. The mech's swing one way then half rotation later they swing back. Net result is 8 swings per rotation. I think the early wheels used only 3 mech's. This is when the "and still you don't understand" symbol was published, so the three pie wedges represent the three mech's with six swings per rotation.
re: How does this work?
Further to jim_mich's post [a couple earlier] about conservation of energy & angular momentum here is an easy example to follow. The two pendulums are equal in every way. Each of the four weights [yellow & blue] are each 1 kg. The rest of the setup is virtually massless.
The top pendulum bob & individual weights that make it up are locked i.e. fixed & forced to rotate about their individual axis's. The bottom pendulum bob & individual weights are free spinning i.e. free to rotate. It is connected to the pendulum rod via a greased bearing [as jim_mich suggested in another thread].
The weights are different coloured so that those without WM can see the relative positions of everything in motion. Note the alignment to the rod at the start & at half amplitude. N.B. the free to rotate setup never changes spacial orientation.
Notice that the "free to rotate" pendulum is well in advance of the "fixed" pendulum after a few swings [swinging left to right].
This is because although their masses are identical their inertia's are different. This translates into speed of swing, which as we all know means different energy by the square. So you could conclude that it is more inertia & energy efficient to have a "free to rotate' situation, if you are looking to extract any energy from velocity.
P.S. this is not a pairs of pairs per mech representation & using 4 weights is purely coincidental.
The top pendulum bob & individual weights that make it up are locked i.e. fixed & forced to rotate about their individual axis's. The bottom pendulum bob & individual weights are free spinning i.e. free to rotate. It is connected to the pendulum rod via a greased bearing [as jim_mich suggested in another thread].
The weights are different coloured so that those without WM can see the relative positions of everything in motion. Note the alignment to the rod at the start & at half amplitude. N.B. the free to rotate setup never changes spacial orientation.
Notice that the "free to rotate" pendulum is well in advance of the "fixed" pendulum after a few swings [swinging left to right].
This is because although their masses are identical their inertia's are different. This translates into speed of swing, which as we all know means different energy by the square. So you could conclude that it is more inertia & energy efficient to have a "free to rotate' situation, if you are looking to extract any energy from velocity.
P.S. this is not a pairs of pairs per mech representation & using 4 weights is purely coincidental.
- Attachments
-
- Locked v's Unlocked Inertia Study
Start Postion b4 swing initiated
-
- Locked v's Unlocked Inertia Study
Unlocked in advance of Locked - swinging from left to right
-
- Locked_Unlocked_Inertia.wm2d
- Locked v's Unlocked Pendulum Study
- (18.84 KiB) Downloaded 362 times
re: How does this work?
So free spinning weights certainly 'gain energy from there swinging' it seems.
Thinking lateraly are there any potentially useful things going on at the pivot end (forces) or is that just the same in either example?
Regards
jon
Thinking lateraly are there any potentially useful things going on at the pivot end (forces) or is that just the same in either example?
Regards
jon
re: How does this work?
Well ... You could say that the "free to rotate" situation has less inertial resistance to movement. This description is not technically correct but easier to conceptualize.
There certainly is something going on at the pivot ends. The pivots are experiencing centrifugal "pull" (CF) & usually this is proportional to the velocity of the swing [momentum], which we know is different for the two situations i.e. the rod counters with Centripetal Forces (CP) in equal magnitude to the CF trying to pull it apart. It experiences CP because of CF.
N.B. CF is different from CP in that it is really a manifestation of an objects Inertia. The greater the Inertia [tangental in a straight line] the greater the CF. It is usually said that the body's inertia is proportional [by the square] to its velocity & we call it momentum.
But this raises an interesting discussion point !
In one situation the velocity of swing is faster due to lesser inertial resistance [not forced to change the orientation of every atom by the greatest amount, as it swings]. In the other, the velocity of swing is less but the inertial resistance is greater [that is, its resistance to having its deviation from a straight line is at a maximum]. This is where Center of Gyration experiments are useful. It would appear that CF energy is a combination of the Velocity of swing factored by the 'Inertial State' of the object, to give total energy. That would suggest that any combination of inertia & velocity will give rise to the same energy measurement & it is conserved.
i.e. Conservation of Angular Momentum [CoAM] Laws & Conservation of Energy Laws should say that the two situations are equal in energy, even though one is swinging faster than the other.
If there are in fact no obvious advantages to either situation [discussion welcome on any of this] because the energy remains the same for both situations, then that leaves CF as the driver trickling out the bottom, so to speak.
Since changing radius or orbit via CF leveraging is always subject to CoAM then perhaps there is a way to use the CF so that some energy of transition can be 'bled off' to lift its own CoG & reset the device for the back swing AND do some external work, thus still conforming to known laws of physics ?
There certainly is something going on at the pivot ends. The pivots are experiencing centrifugal "pull" (CF) & usually this is proportional to the velocity of the swing [momentum], which we know is different for the two situations i.e. the rod counters with Centripetal Forces (CP) in equal magnitude to the CF trying to pull it apart. It experiences CP because of CF.
N.B. CF is different from CP in that it is really a manifestation of an objects Inertia. The greater the Inertia [tangental in a straight line] the greater the CF. It is usually said that the body's inertia is proportional [by the square] to its velocity & we call it momentum.
But this raises an interesting discussion point !
In one situation the velocity of swing is faster due to lesser inertial resistance [not forced to change the orientation of every atom by the greatest amount, as it swings]. In the other, the velocity of swing is less but the inertial resistance is greater [that is, its resistance to having its deviation from a straight line is at a maximum]. This is where Center of Gyration experiments are useful. It would appear that CF energy is a combination of the Velocity of swing factored by the 'Inertial State' of the object, to give total energy. That would suggest that any combination of inertia & velocity will give rise to the same energy measurement & it is conserved.
i.e. Conservation of Angular Momentum [CoAM] Laws & Conservation of Energy Laws should say that the two situations are equal in energy, even though one is swinging faster than the other.
If there are in fact no obvious advantages to either situation [discussion welcome on any of this] because the energy remains the same for both situations, then that leaves CF as the driver trickling out the bottom, so to speak.
Since changing radius or orbit via CF leveraging is always subject to CoAM then perhaps there is a way to use the CF so that some energy of transition can be 'bled off' to lift its own CoG & reset the device for the back swing AND do some external work, thus still conforming to known laws of physics ?
re: How does this work?
The Apologia wheel "do you still not understand" drawing was first published in Bessler's earlier period, as jim_mich already said.
It could well indicate a three mech wheel but it probably also indicates something much more profound.
Below is what I think it means. It could show the transition phases where CF's are greatest & least in a single oscillating mech.
It could well indicate a three mech wheel but it probably also indicates something much more profound.
Below is what I think it means. It could show the transition phases where CF's are greatest & least in a single oscillating mech.
- Attachments
-
- CF transition Phases - Latching & Releasing Positions
re: How does this work?
Fletcher,
All that you have posted in your next to last post is true. There's not much more that I can add to it. If weights are free to rotate then they don't "absorb" energy by being forced to rotate as they swing. All the "absorbed" energy goes into the swing rather than into the rotate.
As far as the Apologia wheel goes I don't see it as showing transition phases. But hey, I could be wrong.
All that you have posted in your next to last post is true. There's not much more that I can add to it. If weights are free to rotate then they don't "absorb" energy by being forced to rotate as they swing. All the "absorbed" energy goes into the swing rather than into the rotate.
As far as the Apologia wheel goes I don't see it as showing transition phases. But hey, I could be wrong.
re: How does this work?
Hey Jim .. I could well be wrong about the Apologia drawing, nothing set in concrete & I have been wrong b4 ;)
Also, sorry for making a short story long [your one sentence said it all]. It is nothing different than Rotational & Translational Kinetic Energy of a rolling cylinder or ring applied to a pendulum example.
I do think though that thru better examples & understanding a chink in the armour of the laws of physics may be found [as you seem to have].
Sometimes for me advances are made by small incremental steps pried loose out of the woodwork rather than giant intuitive strides, & I'd be really happy to follow along behind best I can if you are proved right, so get back to that workshop ;)
Also, sorry for making a short story long [your one sentence said it all]. It is nothing different than Rotational & Translational Kinetic Energy of a rolling cylinder or ring applied to a pendulum example.
I do think though that thru better examples & understanding a chink in the armour of the laws of physics may be found [as you seem to have].
Sometimes for me advances are made by small incremental steps pried loose out of the woodwork rather than giant intuitive strides, & I'd be really happy to follow along behind best I can if you are proved right, so get back to that workshop ;)
re: How does this work?
Hi All
I look at the Apologia wheel and all I see is weebles. I see Bessler taking a circle/cylinder, splitting it into 3 or 6 pieces and trying to make me see it as the 3 or 6 components that all have eccentric centers of mass, as opposed to the cylinder from which they were derived, which has a symmetrical center of mass.
I then see finding the centers of mass of these components and piercing the individual weebles slightly toward their points as a means of getting height out of something that would be much shorter if it were a round weight. The lower center of mass means that the weeble seeks its highest height, no matter how you place it, except for one position, when it is in perfect balance with the point being aimed perfectly down.
The first attempt at trying to use the weeble effect is the shiftweeble drawing that is the subject of this thread. Now, instead of using the weeble effect to providing a shifting mechanism, I'm going to have to go about it differently. Perhaps pairs of eccentric weights (weebles) in compartments that move within a certain range within a wheel that don't allow either of the eccentric weights to be in a position to be individually balanced, thereby disallowing the compartments to become balanced once the wheel is set in motion.
One of the other reason I think weebles may be a participatory effect is the toy page of MT. If I were to hide a principle, I'd turn things upside down or lay them on their side to see what's hidden. The spinning top, if turned upside down (or on its side), acts as a weeble. Seeing the top as a gyro is too obvious. Seeing the top as a weeble is requires imagining Bessler as a sneaky clue master.
I look at the Apologia wheel and all I see is weebles. I see Bessler taking a circle/cylinder, splitting it into 3 or 6 pieces and trying to make me see it as the 3 or 6 components that all have eccentric centers of mass, as opposed to the cylinder from which they were derived, which has a symmetrical center of mass.
I then see finding the centers of mass of these components and piercing the individual weebles slightly toward their points as a means of getting height out of something that would be much shorter if it were a round weight. The lower center of mass means that the weeble seeks its highest height, no matter how you place it, except for one position, when it is in perfect balance with the point being aimed perfectly down.
The first attempt at trying to use the weeble effect is the shiftweeble drawing that is the subject of this thread. Now, instead of using the weeble effect to providing a shifting mechanism, I'm going to have to go about it differently. Perhaps pairs of eccentric weights (weebles) in compartments that move within a certain range within a wheel that don't allow either of the eccentric weights to be in a position to be individually balanced, thereby disallowing the compartments to become balanced once the wheel is set in motion.
One of the other reason I think weebles may be a participatory effect is the toy page of MT. If I were to hide a principle, I'd turn things upside down or lay them on their side to see what's hidden. The spinning top, if turned upside down (or on its side), acts as a weeble. Seeing the top as a gyro is too obvious. Seeing the top as a weeble is requires imagining Bessler as a sneaky clue master.
re: How does this work?
Now you've got me seeing weebles all over the place - lol.
I see where you are going. For some added research into "weebles - use of" you might want to take a peek at Jan Rutkowski's web site. He uses a weeble on a wobble board ;) I'll find the site & link it.
http://astrosa.8k.com/jan/main2.htm
And you are right about hiding things on the toy page.
I see where you are going. For some added research into "weebles - use of" you might want to take a peek at Jan Rutkowski's web site. He uses a weeble on a wobble board ;) I'll find the site & link it.
http://astrosa.8k.com/jan/main2.htm
And you are right about hiding things on the toy page.
re: How does this work?
Showing what WM says about Kinetic Energy from Velocity.
Free to Rotate pendulum v's Locked pendulum. Kinetic Energy transferred to identical masses on the same slope.
Free to Rotate pendulum v's Locked pendulum. Kinetic Energy transferred to identical masses on the same slope.
- Attachments
-
- Race02.wm2d
- Sim to show Kinetic Energy transfer from Velocity of Impact
- (17.48 KiB) Downloaded 373 times
-
- Free to Rotate has greater Velocity & Energy at Impact