while watching the ocean's response to the shifting shelf and the effortless creation of the 30' wave, I noticed that the sea was churning in a circular motion at three different areas ...side by side... building up to the one large delivered equal force of a perfectly lined 500 mile per hour tsunami. the appearance of all three circular churning areas was duplicating the appearance of another weather anomaly seen from the air...a hurricane..
NOW to tie this in to my favorite quandary...how to make a car that runs on just centrifugal force power...using one of your great ideas of the fifth wheel in the center on it's side...weightless because of it's slight angle and speed...we might need two...because then they could rotate at a stop to turn the vehicle around without a three point turn...my mind is racing...I need your educated input... I've been thinking about this since I took a half filled bucket of water and spun it around faster and faster until it became effortless and did not loose a drop of water.
Power output
Moderator: scott
re: Power output
Very true.nicbordeaux wrote:Honestly, most of the problem is that we are all so caught up in our own thought processes and theories/builds that we don't/can't afford to get deeply inquisivitive into other peoples ideas/plans/builds, except on a very superficial level without getting a major headache at the expense of our individual pet theories.
I used to think cognitive dissonance was the reason why people could see that I had solved the Keenie wheel enigma but your explanation is more likely. After all, apart from those who are here to spread FUD everyone believes a solution is possible.
At first I was surprised at the fact the high-inertia/low-inertia wheel attracted so little comment but now I can see the benefit. It has allowed me to dig more deeply and work out the functional equivalents to the energy generating Carnot cycle.
Who is she that cometh forth as the morning rising, fair as the moon, bright as the sun, terribilis ut castrorum acies ordinata?
re: Power output
@ Nicbordeaux
The above diagram shows the incremental changes for slow loading of a beam.
An increment of the load is applied (blue vertical line). It accelerates under gravity past the equilibrium point putting elastic energy into the beam. The beam slowly relaxes (red angled line) to the equilibrium line where the acceleration gravity is applying downwards to the weight is equal to the acceleration the beam is applying upwards to the weight.
You probably prefer the think of this equilibrium in the more familiar static terms of equal and opposite forces rather than the dynamic terms of acceleration, i.e. as the downwards force of gravity being equal to the upward force of the beam. The two views are equivalent.
You can appreciate that the difference between sudden loading and slow loading of a beam is only apparent visually when the recovery acceleration of beam, its rate of relaxation, is much less than acceleration due to gravity.
Also, it is much easier to capture and store the single large overshoot of a suddenly applied load rather than the much smaller incremental overshoots of a slowly applied load.
If you are familiar with the Carnot cycle then you might be interested to know that sudden and slow loading are functionally equivalent to adiabatic and isothermal pressure changes respectively.
Since one has the functional elements of an continuous energy cycle it is hardly surprising that there is opportunity to abstract energy on a similar continuous basis from the gravitational field.
I will elaborate on the functional equivalence between slow loading and isothermal pressure change in a later post.
The above diagram shows the incremental changes for slow loading of a beam.
An increment of the load is applied (blue vertical line). It accelerates under gravity past the equilibrium point putting elastic energy into the beam. The beam slowly relaxes (red angled line) to the equilibrium line where the acceleration gravity is applying downwards to the weight is equal to the acceleration the beam is applying upwards to the weight.
You probably prefer the think of this equilibrium in the more familiar static terms of equal and opposite forces rather than the dynamic terms of acceleration, i.e. as the downwards force of gravity being equal to the upward force of the beam. The two views are equivalent.
You can appreciate that the difference between sudden loading and slow loading of a beam is only apparent visually when the recovery acceleration of beam, its rate of relaxation, is much less than acceleration due to gravity.
Also, it is much easier to capture and store the single large overshoot of a suddenly applied load rather than the much smaller incremental overshoots of a slowly applied load.
If you are familiar with the Carnot cycle then you might be interested to know that sudden and slow loading are functionally equivalent to adiabatic and isothermal pressure changes respectively.
Since one has the functional elements of an continuous energy cycle it is hardly surprising that there is opportunity to abstract energy on a similar continuous basis from the gravitational field.
I will elaborate on the functional equivalence between slow loading and isothermal pressure change in a later post.
- Attachments
-
Who is she that cometh forth as the morning rising, fair as the moon, bright as the sun, terribilis ut castrorum acies ordinata?
Thanks Frank ... I tend to agree that whether the loading is fast or slow, it is always a dynamic situation rather than a static one. If only for the simple reason that mass is a dynamic bundle of spinning atoms. Everything is dynamic, and elapsed time is a very relative thing.
You picture has prompted me to share an idea that I had recently.
The 'momentumist' theory of gravity powered wheels depends a lot on being able to transfer all the momentum of a moving mass to another. The skeptical approach considers this to be completely impossible - to do so could violate COE.
To avoid energy loss we need to aim as close to perfect elastic collision as possible. The problem with this is that the impacting mass tends to bounce back. Or, if the impacted mass is smaller it shoots away and losses contact and can't gain all the momentum available.
How about this as a theory for total transfer of momentum from a small dropped ball to a heavy flywheel ...
Make the ball and the flywheel from very elastic material (e.g. steel) .
Give the flywheel multiple flat landings around the perimeter that the ball can be dropped onto.
Think 'rotary staircase'.
The idea is to bounce the ball as many times as necessary to extract all momentum.
When the ball bounces the first time, the force of impact is shared equally. Half will go into accelerating the flywheel. The other half goes into accelerating the ball back up again. This momentum is not lost - because as the ball rises, it is lossing kE but gaining pE. Essentially - we are using the gravity field as a perfect spring, so this is similar to ideas involving storing impact energy in a spring - except this is far more efficient.
Each time the ball bounces - it shares half it's remaining momentum, until finally it has transfered all it's energy.
The goal is to be like the mechanical equivalent of a Pelton wheel - highly efficient at extracting all momentum from a falling object.
You picture has prompted me to share an idea that I had recently.
The 'momentumist' theory of gravity powered wheels depends a lot on being able to transfer all the momentum of a moving mass to another. The skeptical approach considers this to be completely impossible - to do so could violate COE.
To avoid energy loss we need to aim as close to perfect elastic collision as possible. The problem with this is that the impacting mass tends to bounce back. Or, if the impacted mass is smaller it shoots away and losses contact and can't gain all the momentum available.
How about this as a theory for total transfer of momentum from a small dropped ball to a heavy flywheel ...
Make the ball and the flywheel from very elastic material (e.g. steel) .
Give the flywheel multiple flat landings around the perimeter that the ball can be dropped onto.
Think 'rotary staircase'.
The idea is to bounce the ball as many times as necessary to extract all momentum.
When the ball bounces the first time, the force of impact is shared equally. Half will go into accelerating the flywheel. The other half goes into accelerating the ball back up again. This momentum is not lost - because as the ball rises, it is lossing kE but gaining pE. Essentially - we are using the gravity field as a perfect spring, so this is similar to ideas involving storing impact energy in a spring - except this is far more efficient.
Each time the ball bounces - it shares half it's remaining momentum, until finally it has transfered all it's energy.
The goal is to be like the mechanical equivalent of a Pelton wheel - highly efficient at extracting all momentum from a falling object.
Yep. You have the right approach to the problem.
But I think you will find that you need the interaction between two wheels, a heavy one and a light one (a quasi earth and a quasi moon). Kirk is thinking along the right lines in that he has momentum exchanged between a one pounder and a quarter pounder.
When a weight is dropped under G the momentum of the earth upwards which is equal to the momentum of the weight downwards is ignored. This is because we look at things from the earth frame of reference, an easy mistake to make. If we moved ourselves to the weight and looked "up" to the earth we would see it rushing to hit us on the head.
This is all more obvious if we take a larger object such as the moon and appreciate that both earth and moon are falling towards their barycentre.
Half emm vee squared ignores recoil energy. The full mv² is available if one arranges things correctly.
But I think you will find that you need the interaction between two wheels, a heavy one and a light one (a quasi earth and a quasi moon). Kirk is thinking along the right lines in that he has momentum exchanged between a one pounder and a quarter pounder.
When a weight is dropped under G the momentum of the earth upwards which is equal to the momentum of the weight downwards is ignored. This is because we look at things from the earth frame of reference, an easy mistake to make. If we moved ourselves to the weight and looked "up" to the earth we would see it rushing to hit us on the head.
This is all more obvious if we take a larger object such as the moon and appreciate that both earth and moon are falling towards their barycentre.
Half emm vee squared ignores recoil energy. The full mv² is available if one arranges things correctly.
re: Power output
The strain energy recoveries in the above graph were show as a straight lines for simplicity. In reality of course with an elastic beam having a high coefficient of restitution the approach to equilibrium will be more like the graph shown below and energy will gradually be transferred to random momentum ending up as heat.
Clearly, it is easier to catch and store the sudden impact energy resulting from a single large deformation that to catch as store that energy resulting from incremental load applications.
- Attachments
-
-
Who is she that cometh forth as the morning rising, fair as the moon, bright as the sun, terribilis ut castrorum acies ordinata?