Decoupling RKE from GPE, for fun and profit

[pequaide]

T-bones, again.

[MrVibrating]

Hope you don't have any other important things to think about this week Mr V. It's gonna keep you occupied in the day and awake in the middle of the night.

LOL it's just a little manic episode, we all get them, it'll pass.

Scissorjacks.

We've been over 'em so many times it almost sounds like an expletive, something you might shout when stubbing a toe..

The thought keeps recurring that they seem to offer pretty much everything i'm on about here... specifically a constant acceleration curve.

A linear one. Could it be that scissorjacks allow us to do something only otherwise possible via an N3 break? Like being able to run along behind an accelerating mass, without having to do so...

I'll cut right to the chase: stupid question; can we linearly accelerate a 1kg mass to 10m/s (50J) using only 10J and a scissorjacK?

Obviously it'll actually take 50J. Obvioushly.. Gotta be.

But who knows, perhaps it's worth double-checking..

Gotta admit, i've cooled on this somewhat today. Starting to seem like a whole lotta crazy talk..

[MrVibrating]

T-bones, again.

The first days of summer are the worst for that. Too much distraction..

TBH tearing around town all day you gotta be so keyed in there's just no opportunity to think about anything else. On the plus side it really helps the time fly, although on the flipside i don't know where the last 20 years have gone..

[Fletcher]

Unable to think of any mechanics that might test this hypothesis I did think that fusee's kind of fit the bill in some regard.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusee_%28horology%29

[pequaide]

A balanced beam with one kilogram at a distance of 10 decimeters on one side balances 10 kilograms at 1 decimeter on the other side. It rotates smoothly which proves that the long side needs no more torque than the short side. Plus; photo gate timers also prove it needs the same force (torque).

The image you need is a rim mass wheel rotated from a small radius (or fusee).

[MrVibrating]

Unable to think of any mechanics that might test this hypothesis I did think that fusee's kind of fit the bill in some regard.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusee_%28horology%29

Fusee! Knew there had to be a better term than "spiral spindle"...

However if we use a single fusee mounted axially, and drop a weight from it, the distance the weight drops per torque angle decreases.

I thought that perhaps using two inverted fusees might correct for this by running the drive belt from the thick end of one to the thin end of the other, but i don't think that works either..

Bottom line is that i can see no fundamental reason we can't maintain a consistent drop distance per torque angle... it's just a matter of mechanical ingenuity.

Making a fusee in WM2D would seem to require scripting, if it's even possible.

Perhaps we could simply drop more weight to compensate the fusee's decreasing drop distance per angle, and so still maintain kg/m/s parity.

A start might be to try to sim the presumed reference frame split by artificially emulating the effects of an N3 violation. For instance we could simply keep pausing and editing a sim to cheat, and rotate a motor's FoR (its stator and whatever it's attached to) to artificially 'reset' stator and rotor into the same rotating frame. Then, each 1kg/m/s acceleration should still cost 1J in the inertial frame, while squaring up in the non-inertial frame.

In this case we'd know our edits were responsible for the gain, and wouldn't have proved such manipulations are physically possible. But we'd have confirmed the consequences, were it feasible.

Then we'd really know the game was on, and the rest really would be just a matter of engineering..

[MrVibrating]

NB. i keep using single Joules for simplicity, but the maths says that the FoR's don't begin diverging until after two Joules (ie. half of two squared still equals two). So in any practical implementation that'll boost the startup phase, at any rate.. although really, the asymmetry grows so wide so quickly, it probably makes little difference..

[MrVibrating]

A balanced beam with one kilogram at a distance of 10 decimeters on one side balances 10 kilograms at 1 decimeter on the other side. It rotates smoothly which proves that the long side needs no more torque than the short side. Plus; photo gate timers also prove it needs the same force (torque).

The image you need is a rim mass wheel rotated from a small radius (or fusee).

Thanks mate i'm so grateful i've got the both of you on board. The crazy boat, no doubt. But i knew i wouldn't be howling in the wind here - this is about the only forum i know where you could even hope to get any intelligent consideration for such whacky ideas. That makes us, like, the OU Skunkworks, when you think about it. Proper blue-sky brainstorming, without the flame wars. Nice.

But yeah, fusees seem to solve half the mechanism... it gives us the progressive input radius, allowing us to chase the MoI via the torque curve.

We just need to find a way to maintain the input energy per angle, and then the game is afoot..

[Furcurequs]

When I hear or see "fusee," I still think of "road flare." I wasn't familiar with the cone shaped gear until having seen it mentioned in this forum.

Apparently, "Fusee" was also a brand of flare and the name became genericized over time. So, that's what my dad, who was a truck driver, called road flares when I was a kid.

Anyway, just some trivia...

http://www.fusee-flare.com/html_en/fusee.htm

[MrVibrating]

"In a true PM everything must, of necessity, go around together."

...because you need to keep inputting energy from within the accelerating frame, in order to yield a squaring output from a linear input.

The term "squaring the circle" has just taken on a whole new meaning...

Could be on the brink here.. This must be the asymmetry he was using (yeah I always say that, but this time everything seems to be sliding neatly into place)....

[MrVibrating]

When I hear or see "fusee," I still think of "road flare." I wasn't familiar with the cone shaped gear until having seen it mentioned in this forum.

Apparently, "Fusee" was also a brand of flare and the name became genericized over time. So, that's what my dad, who was a truck driver, called road flares when I was a kid.

Anyway, just some trivia...

http://www.fusee-flare.com/html_en/fusee.htm

If my most recent mental contortions are correct, a pair of inverted fusees should work; just run the belt from the thick end of the input GPE's fusee to the thin end of the wheel's fusee and we get a consistent work conversion - each input Joule accelerating 1kg of rotor mass by 1m/s despite the accumulating RPM.

[Fletcher]

Here you go Mr V.

Continuously Variable Transmissions.

https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=cvt+transmissions

Have a look at the Wikipedia page; particularly scroll down to cone CVT's etc.

There are some You-Tube vids as well.

[Fletcher]

I remember dax saying a few years ago now that he thought Bessler was hard out attempting to square the circle. And IINM that Bessler thought he had found the answer.

It'd be a real side splitter if it was in fact a sly reference to how he actually got an energy gain in a dynamic system as you propose Mr V; LOL.

[MrVibrating]

Just home from work - was listening to an old hardcore track earlier with the lyric "can't beat the system, go with the flow" and ever since i've been thinking that maybe the water wheel images in MT are hinting something similar... (the "flow" being momentum, obviously)

So quite understandably i've been eager to get home and start trawling through all the Bessler imagery for any clues consistent with a linear input vs a squared output.

The very first image i've loaded is the Kassel wheel featuring the Archimedes screw... and lo and behold, it's pertty much a hieroglyph for a linear input with a squared output!

The input is the bucket spooling off the axle, and the output is the water screw, turned via the "square wheel".

Linear input. Square output.

O.M.G.

I'm gonna go thru all the images now, making notes, will post anything interesting later.

A final thought for now is that the distinction between the scalar momentum (mv) and the KE vector mv^2 was one of the defining scientific debates of the day, and Bessler was personally aquainted with two of its leading figures in Leibniz, and s'Gravesande (who of course formalised the distinction).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vis_viva

It thus seems untenable that Bessler wouldn't've been au fait with such intricacies, and in the great debate about which term was more fundamental he'd likely have given the matter considerable contemplation.

And of course, both are right. Both at the same time, with no contradiction. I suspect that Bessler didn't just stumble across a runner then reverse engineer the principle... on the contrary, i think he made exactly the same connection i have here - that if both terms are right then use one for an input, the other for an output and gain anything from 5 to 50 times your effort..


PS. i also gave scissorjacks some more thought and decided a sim would most likely be futile as the accelerating mass remains in the FoR of whatever the jacks are pushing against. The dual inverted fusee transmission i think has more promise as a constant torque implementation, however the original step-wise solution remains the most robust, simple and easy to comprehend version - the results of which seem increasingly incontrovertible... and this, i'm fairly certain, is what Bessler's wheels used (in the main, at least - he claimed to have many principals, but presumably they were all variations on tapping the same asymmetry). So maybe scissorjacks really are just a metaphor - most likely, for constant or rising acceleration (although i still have a hunch they may yet help us chase the accelerating FoR somehow).

MT41 and and 42 would seem to fit with this; their message being that the wheel is driven (and weights lifted) by a constant acceleration applied to the wheel itself.

We may have half the solution to the Toys Page too - again, siccorjacks = sustained acceleration, the two hammer toys, one with a circular anvil, the other square. The two vertical figures A and B i'm still unsure of, but they're parallel to the scissorjacks and have five segments... possibly indicating the five-fold gain (10J in nets 50J out)..

Also, if this theory is on the right track then Bessler will quite possibly have made significant allusions to, or even usage of, the relationships between integers and half their squares. As such, 3 is paired with 4.5, and 4 is likewise related to 8, 5 to 12.5, 6 to 18, 7 to 24.5, 8 to 32, 9 to 40.5, 10 to 50 and so forth. Clearly the even numbers are neater fits., but then the odd ones all end in .5, which might also appeal to his sensibilities. I've seen absolutely no evidence for this in his work but then i haven't looked for it yet.. however given his inclinations it would seem remiss of him to miss such an opportunity to obfuscate things in plain sight..

So, if you're into ciphers, might wanna keep such a number line handy...

[MrVibrating]

Here you go Mr V.

Continuously Variable Transmissions.

https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=cvt+transmissions

Have a look at the Wikipedia page; particularly scroll down to cone CVT's etc.

There are some You-Tube vids as well.

Cheers mate, the question is, how did Bessler do it?

Keeping our GPE inputs inside the accelerating frame obviously helps, rather than trying to reach in from outside, or simulate co-rotation without actually doing so. This would obviate the CVT approach (though in principle it still seems viable).

Most internal lever mechanisms we encounter will exert less RKE (if any!) as RPM increases.

You could perhaps increase the GPE by raising the height or mass of successive inputs, but that seems messy. There must be some way of getting a consistent acceleration of the wheel for a given GPE input, across a range of speeds, using only internal GPE loads, rotating with the wheel.

And whatever it is, it's either an N3 break, or simulates the results of one. As i've shown previously, simply dropping a mass against gravity can provide such an effect. Somehow, torque is being applied without a counter-reaction.

Presuming the two things we're looking for are actually one and the same, then there's some mechanism or principle that is or can be inertia-less and which is also at least partially independent of RPM.

It doesn't necessarilly need to apply rising force if it's already within the accelerating frame, so its F*d integral could be constant (always doing the same amount of work regardless of RPM). However in principle, its workload could increase to compensate rising RPM - so long as it's a linear increase, we still get the exponential RKE.

But it also has a reactionless aspect - it applies force without incurring a counter-reaction (grounded displacements notwithstanding).

Basically, if this IS the right asymmetry then going stator-less is likely as much a functional as aesthetic improvement.

Presumably JC or Oystein's findings might help here .. but there's no great urgency. In the meantime, if stators work then sweet, stators it is..

However if all Bessler's wheels had to be vertical, and needed to run from weights rather than springs or whatever (because as already noted, springs seem the superior choice), then it seems safe to presume that gravity does indeed provide the effective N3 violation. IOW he was cycling clumsy GPE loads instead of neat sprung loads because gravitation provides torque without instantaneous counter-torque; by the time the weights needed relifting, symmetry was already broken with a nice surfeit of RKE.

I like this hypothesis. You can't get a gravitational asymmetry, but you can use gravity to simulate the effects of an N3 break, and thus a rest frame inside an accelerating one. Hence conventional over-balance is both pivotal and yet incidental - we need a weight to fall, but we're totally unconcerned by the costs of raising it again. Hell, we'd pay good interest. So a 10J drop still requires a 10J lift. But by the time payment's due we'll be 50J up... we could raise our original weight, plus four more.

This subtle distinction may resolve some of the seemingly paradoxical statements Bessler made re. OB... it's essential if you understand why, but futile if you're looking for a gravitational asymmetry, LOL...